Talk:Tornado (disambiguation)

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Special_Tasks_Patrol_Police#Former_special_police_units|former Ukrainian special volunteer unit]] The anchor (#Former_special_police_units) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Replica

Note: Talk page post moved here from Talk:LNER Peppercorn Class A1 60163 Tornado

Could we please stop calling Tornado a replica steam locomotive, it is in fact a new build A1 locomotive. Thank You! Britishrailclass91 (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what determines if an item is an exact replica or built as the next in the class/series? The only thing I can think of, in this instance, is that the new engine ws given the next engine number and a new name. A replica, I guess, would have been given a name/number of an engine that previously existed. A similar discsussion arose with the Sanction II Aston Martin DB4 GT Zagatos
LewisR (talk) 01:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the Trust's own publicity materials: "Technically it would have been possible to produce a complete replica Peppercorn A1, at least in terms of physical construction. However, this would have been unneccessarily expensive and would have produced a locomotive with limited operational potential. Thus, from the outset the Board of the A1 Steam Locomotive Trust decided that the target would be a locomotive that looked and sounded like an A1 but with a number of modifications aimed at better suiting it to operation in the 21st century. These fall into three categories: 1. Manufacturing economies, 2. Requirements for modern operating conditions, 3. Performance/reliability improvements". MickMacNee (talk) 00:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a DAB

This is a DAB not a normal article. The primary link's description needs to be as brief as is possible --Hutcher (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes, quite. I hope no-one minds but I will try to fix it now. The discussion of different ideas seems wholly inappropriate here though I'd be happy to discuss it. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it the column, or the rotation, that is violent?

At the moment we have this:

A tornado is a violent rotating column of air that touches the surface of the earth.

which in any case might be better rendered as:

A tornado is a violent, rotating column of air that touches the surface of the earth.

but actually I am wondering if it would not be better as:

A tornado is a violently rotating column of air that touches the surface of the earth.

As I say, it's really a question of what is violent. If the column is a violent column then it's fine as it is (or plus that comma) but if it is the rotation that is violent then we need the adverbial form -ly. What do you think? DBaK (talk) 12:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]