Talk:Manchester, South Dakota

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

South Dakota Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Dakota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of South Dakota 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.South DakotaWikipedia:WikiProject South DakotaTemplate:WikiProject South DakotaSouth Dakota articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Ghost towns 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.Ghost townsWikipedia:WikiProject Ghost townsTemplate:WikiProject Ghost townsGhost town articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. Wikipedians in South Dakota may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

An entire town gets destroyed by a tornado, and this is as much of the story as we get? - Jlhamilt 19:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These mugs could've died. Don't nobody care though. Ain't that a damn shame.

If you're basing your assumptions based on the population it's quite deceving, since someone put the population of the entire township in that box. I have seen this on many unincorporated communities pages, it makes people think there's alot more people in the town than what it says.. Manchester only had a handfull of people living there, so it's basically an unincorporated community like it says in the beginning of the page, thankfully no one was killed in this tornado outbreak. --Atilla5 (talk) 03:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The EF-scale was introduced in 2007, but the tornado occured in 2003. I think it is quite senseless to mention the possible EF-scale rating, because the scientific accepted damage rating scale back in 2003 was the original Fujita-Scale. If one mentiones the EF-rating, one should do it correct. The tornadic circulation reached a speed of over 260 mph and according to this data the tornado was an EF5 and not an EF4.

I've removed the additional EF-rating from the article. If this shouldn't be correct (e.g. in case of the speed was downgraded) one may revoke my changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.131.200.106 (talk) 12:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The EF-rating needs to be in the article if we are going to discuss estimated winds in the tornado. Winds near 260mph may have been estimated at the time of the tornado, but if they were estimated based upon damage indicators of the old F-scale, then it is incorrect. The updated list of likely wind speeds and associated damage indicators is the EF-scale, which suggests winds of 160-200mph for an EF4 tornado. W Scott Lincoln, M.S. 16:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Manchester, South Dakota. 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/20070927024635/http://www.plainsman.com/fe_view_article.php?story_id=1391&page_id=72&heading=0 to http://www.plainsman.com/fe_view_article.php?story_id=1391&page_id=72&heading=0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]