Talk:London tornado of 1091

London Low‑importance

	London portal 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.

Weather: Thunderstorms / Tornadoes Low‑importance

	Weather portal 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.
	Tornadoes portal This article is supported by WikiProject Severe weather (assessed as Low-importance).

Julian/Gregorian[edit]

Is it really necessary to correct the date? The Gregorian Calendar didn't exist yet. The dates are different in periods where some places use the Julian and some the Gregorian, or for people who were born when the Julian was in use and died when the Gregorian was in use. Here it makes no sense. There was only one date. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the date; the PBS source given doesn't correct it either. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Needs expansion[edit]

Just some thoughts for whomever wishes to tackle it and expand this article.

What did medieval people think about seeing such a tornado?
Did they think it was God's wrath?
What exactly was recorded about it? Size? Shape? Color?
What, specifically, has led to the belief that it was an F4? I'm assuming the amount of damage vs. the hypothetical strength of the structures during that day, but we know what they say about assuming.

Again, just some thoughts. I only just now have ever even heard of it, so obviously I know nothing. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 15:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary background[edit]

An article about a specific event in London in 1091 should not have a recap of London's population over the preceding 1000 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMathemagician (talk • contribs) 08:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's "CAD"? A typo?[edit]

In the 2nd para. it refers to "by 300CAD". Is that meant to be 300 AD? Or does CAD mean something?--A bit iffy (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]