Jump to content

Talk:February 2021 North American ice storm: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 113: Line 113:
===References===
===References===
{{reftalk}}
{{reftalk}}

== Go with what people are calling it (From a resident of Texas here,) ==

Some people call it the President's Day Snow Storm, some call it the Great Texas Snow Storm of '21 and some just call it White Harvey

Revision as of 16:09, 18 February 2021


Weather Channel name

@ChessEric: I brought this to the talk page because we are approaching the 3RR, and I don't want to get blocked. We need to include the Weather Channel name, look at other articles, like February 2021 nor'easter. ~~ 🏅🌀𝕾𝖚𝖕𝖊𝖗 𝕮𝖞𝖈𝖑𝖔𝖓𝖎𝖈 𝕾𝖙𝖔𝖗𝖒 𝕮𝖔𝖗𝖔𝖓𝖆🌀🏅 18:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Super Cyclonic Storm Corona: The name is not in that article.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ChessEric: Someone removed it. Look at January 2016 United States blizzard. ~~ 🏅🌀𝕾𝖚𝖕𝖊𝖗 𝕮𝖞𝖈𝖑𝖔𝖓𝖎𝖈 𝕾𝖙𝖔𝖗𝖒 𝕮𝖔𝖗𝖔𝖓𝖆🌀🏅 18:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Super Cyclonic Storm Corona: I was in that storm. We NEVER referred to it as Jonas.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 02:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Super Cyclonic Storm Corona: I will admit that was an exception, but that is all.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 02:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ChessEric: You didn’t, but the TWC did. ~~ 🏅🌀𝕾𝖚𝖕𝖊𝖗 𝕮𝖞𝖈𝖑𝖔𝖓𝖎𝖈 𝕾𝖙𝖔𝖗𝖒 𝕮𝖔𝖗𝖔𝖓𝖆🌀🏅 12:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ChessEric: Go through all winter storm articles; you will see all of them have TWC names in the lead. HurricaneCovid (contribs) 14:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Super Cyclonic Storm Corona and HurricaneCovid: I think your missing my point here. I KNOW the TWC did because I watched its coverage (I actually believe we should name winter storms). My POINT is that the lead should only include OFFICIAL or NOTABLE information. Jonas was the exception because there many other unofficial names used for this storm, which made THAT name worth mentioning. That's not the case here. Me and MarioPlotIV don't think it should be in the lead here because it is not an important detail pertaining to this storm. That's all I gonna say about it.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HurricaneCovid, can you provide the source for the 10 fatalities? And another question, should we rename this article, as another ice storm is going to move through on Sunday?[1][2][3] ~~ 🏅🌀𝕾𝖚𝖕𝖊𝖗 𝕮𝖞𝖈𝖑𝖔𝖓𝖎𝖈 𝕾𝖙𝖔𝖗𝖒 𝕮𝖔𝖗𝖔𝖓𝖆🌀🏅 16:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Super Cyclonic Storm Corona: We do not need to rename this article as the other ice storm already has a draft at Draft:February 11–14, 2021 North American storm complex and the name should stay as that, given the ice component will be minor and the snow and ice will have equal impacts, and it will become a nor'easter so just naming it "ice storm" will not be suitable. This article does not need to be renamed. As for the source for the 10 fatalities, it was stated live on TWC yesterday. HurricaneCovid (contribs) 16:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HurricaneCovid: Can you provide a specific source? It might be removed if it has no source. ~~ 🏅🌀𝕾𝖚𝖕𝖊𝖗 𝕮𝖞𝖈𝖑𝖔𝖓𝖎𝖈 𝕾𝖙𝖔𝖗𝖒 𝕮𝖔𝖗𝖔𝖓𝖆🌀🏅 16:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Super Cyclonic Storm Corona: I can look for one; I don't know if I'll find it though, it was stated live on TWC so they might have an article on it. HurricaneCovid (contribs) 16:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HurricaneCovid: OK, thanks! ~~ 🏅🌀𝕾𝖚𝖕𝖊𝖗 𝕮𝖞𝖈𝖑𝖔𝖓𝖎𝖈 𝕾𝖙𝖔𝖗𝖒 𝕮𝖔𝖗𝖔𝖓𝖆🌀🏅 16:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Super Cyclonic Storm Corona and HurricaneCovid: My apologies. I didn't understand how we handle the TWC names. Cyclonebiskit has clued me in, so I understand now. Carry on. LOL!ChessEric (talk · contribs) 03:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ChessEric: It's fine, happens to the best of us. ~~ 🏅🌀𝕾𝖚𝖕𝖊𝖗 𝕮𝖞𝖈𝖑𝖔𝖓𝖎𝖈 𝕾𝖙𝖔𝖗𝖒 𝕮𝖔𝖗𝖔𝖓𝖆🌀🏅 14:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ChessEric: It's fine, you didn't realize. HurricaneCovid (contribs) 23:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Winter Storm Poses Weekend Ice and Snow Threat For Mid-Atlantic, Northeast". The Weather Channel. Retrieved February 12, 2021.
  2. ^ "Snow expected tonight, mainly south of D.C., before possible ice on Saturday". The Washington Post. Retrieved February 12, 2021.
  3. ^ "N.J. weather: Forecasters worried about possible ice storm on Valentine's weekend with snow, sleet, freezing rain". nj.com. Retrieved February 12, 2021.

Requested move 17 February 2021

– We are in a rock in a hard place after Mother Nature has dealt us a crappy hand. The titles of most of the February articles are overly complex and unacceptable. The dates overlap for many storms and there are more drafts on the way for even more storms that overlap. The fact remains here that we have multiple titles that are ambiguous and even experienced editors have no clue which storm is which right now. Here is my proposal for how we handle the naming of future systems and the problem we have currently. While I don't endorse unofficial names, the titles are a mess and it may be the only possible solution to fixing the ambiguous title problem that currently plagues these three articles. The TWC names are being used by other unaffiliated news sites, however they should be our last resort since they are unofficial. We need the most recognizable and succinct name for our articles and the current titles aren't that. NoahTalk 16:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1. Use month + year and identifier (WS/IS/BL/STM CMPX) first. If still ambiguous, go to step 2.
  • 2. Use geographic identifier in addition to the above. If still ambiguous, go to step 3.
  • 3. If the storm was associated with a specific holiday/other well-known event, use that instead of the month. If not applicable or still ambiguous, go to step 4.
  • 4. Use exact dates for the storm. If there are multiple events that overlap and can't be disambiguated in other ways, proceed to step 5.
  • 5. Use The Weather Channel names. NoahTalk 16:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Per Hurricane Noah and WP:IAR. If a rule or norm stands in the way of us improving Wikipedia or life for our readers, then we should set them aside. While the titles of the 4 storms listed above are technically accurate, they are very similar, and this is posing problems since both experienced users and readers are having difficulty distinguishing the individual storms from the article titles alone. For these 4 articles (and any others that may be created later on this month), the Weather Channel's names provide a unique, distinct title for each storm that will not result in any kind of confusion. The fact that multiple other media outlets have used TWC's names for these storms also means that there is some public knowledge of these names, so there won't be much ambiguity there, if at all. Concerning the "unofficial" nature of the names, Wikipedia is NOT the NWS, and we do not have to listen to them on how to treat the Weather Channel storm names. And there have been cases of us using unofficial names for extratropical storms, particularly when the said name became a common name. BTW, there is no hard rule barring us from using TWC names, and consensus can change; I think that we should allow an exception for the winter storm articles from this month (February 2021). In addition, I wholly support adopting the article naming rules proposed by Hurricane Noah above. They would solve our current issue and mitigate any further issues in the future on the titles. To the editors who remain staunchly opposed to using TWC names in article titles no matter what the circumstances, you have two choices here: 1) Allow the use of TWC names for these articles, which will iron out the ambiguity issues (adopting Hurricane Noah's proposed rules would also mitigate similar issues in the future), or 2) Have the articles keep their current titles and continue to pose accessibility and ambiguity issues for both readers and editors alike. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IAR is a cop out. What would be better is combining all these together. They aren't like hurricanes. They are from different mid-latitude cyclones, but the effects can be combined into one article. United States Man (talk) 03:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose number 5 – We agreed in 2012 to not use TWC names as official page names. It is simply a marketing technique used by them to storms that are not even the same area of low pressure (compared to tropical cyclones). The NWS also has rejected this standard and they are an widely-known and verified agency, while TWC just usually displays their data. This issue has come in 2013, 2015 and 2016, and the consensus has been to not highlight the TWC name within the lead or infobox, and instead just mention it briefly at the end of the lede or create a section at the end of the page regarding unofficial names given to a storm, such as here. Regarding “other news outlets use it” they are just paraphrasing TWC and does not add weight to an WP:UNDUE piece of information otherwise. We should simply just continue what we are doing now with some slight accommodation to not confuse readers. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 17:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, slight accommodations simply aren't working. Is four, five, or even more hatnotes at the top of a page really acceptable? We shouldn't have readers running all over God's creation just to find the article they are looking for. The titles should have as little ambiguity as possible. As for the NWS not wanting names, please see WP:NOTCENSORED. What the NWS says or wants simply does not matter for WP. We have articles with ambiguous titles and they need fixed. NoahTalk 18:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioProtIV: I strongly feel that it is about time for a change, as it is now 2021 and the Weather Channel has been naming winter storms for nine years now and publishes their criteria for naming which means that it isn't just a "marketing technique". We have to remember that other widely-known and verified meteorological services name winter storms including the UKMO, Met Eirrean, Meteo France and FU Berlin. As a result, the notion that we should not use the TWC names, just because the NWS has declined to do so and supposedly rejected the standard belongs in the bin.Jason Rees (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These are opinions... it has been proven in a study that winter storms do not behave in the same manner as hurricanes nor do they effect shipping as much as the windstorms in Europe do. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral leaning support We did agree in 2012 that we would avoid using TWC names, but even our own experienced editors are confusing the storms at this point. WP:IAR applies here as we need a way to distinguish these storms, as most likely our viewers are confusing these storms too. I don't think this is a marketing technique, and many other official services support this position. Although NWS disapproves of this, we should still name these the way suggested. HurricaneCovid (contribs) 18:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Could you use quotation marks around the names, like in Lake Storm "Aphid"? I think that would be a good compromise, and it makes things a lot easier. Also, if this move fails, maybe put the names in bold at the top of the lede somewhere? Skarmory (talk • contribs) 18:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all and also support defaulting to any common name - even if that may be the TWC names. We do not follow what one reliable source (the NWS) says/does just because it's a government agency. We should be following WP:DUE and WP:COMMONNAME based on a plethora of reliable sources (People magazine, Business Insider, Esquire, NYDN, and a multitude of local news sources). Other sources, such as CNN, ABC, etc do not give it any name - they just say "the winter storms affecting Texas" or something - so they don't count for determining COMMONNAME as they haven't given it a name. I think back whenever that consensus was made to not use TWC given names, that was likely the correct call by a long shot. But it's time for a change based on wider adoption of the names, even if they aren't universal. If the NWS steps up and starts tracking storms/naming them, then this can yet again be revisited and the naming changed to the "official" name as appropriate. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all whether they are "simply a marketing tactic" or whatever is irrelevant - they are common names and the best names we have for these. Wikipedia doesn't need to not promote things that are marketing - we have articles on various corporations after all. The names should be used and are far better than what we currently have. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 18:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support All Now that you mention it, the names are too complex, and besides, these names are also unofficial, we are not a naming organization. We should choose the most common name. ~~ 🏅🌀𝕾𝖚𝖕𝖊𝖗 𝕮𝖞𝖈𝖑𝖔𝖓𝖎𝖈 𝕾𝖙𝖔𝖗𝖒 𝕮𝖔𝖗𝖔𝖓𝖆🌀🏅 19:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We have a long standing practice within the weather community on here as to how to name these. Changing some of them makes the whole process invalid. We are not a naming organization but we aren't giving them "names" so that argument holds no weight. United States Man (talk) 03:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose #5 per WP:PROMOTION and WP:NPOV. The Weather Channel uses these names for revenue and advertisement, and the "names do not add credibility" based on a research study done.[1] We are not a soapbox for a "marketing tactic" and this subject is controversial. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Knowledgekid87: I strongly disagree with your viewpoint as we would not be promoting The Weather Channel by using the names since they are the most common name for the system. Yes you could argue that the concept of Winter Storm Naming is controversial, but it isn't really since the UKMO and other met services name winter storms on behalf of the WMO.Jason Rees (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are comparing apples and oranges here... we are NOT the UK, and we are NOT Europe. Weather patterns are not universal worldwide. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then how about you nominate The Weather Channel for deletion since we are promoting them by having an article? We aren't saying there is more credibility by adding a name so that point is rather moot. It gets to the point where it is utterly ridiculous to not use the names. Here we are with a clusterfuck of 4-5 articles where nobody can tell them apart and people are more concerned about showing some kind of favoritism towards TWC. I'm sorry, but accessibility trumps any concerns about possible advertisement. They published their naming criteria and it has been going on for 8 years now. Arguing against the names boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. NoahTalk 21:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • It actually boils down to science and recognition, and we do the same with our medical related articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • I am well aware that weather patterns are not universal worldwide but at the end of the day the UKMO and other European weather centres such as Meteo France, FU Berlin name winter storms on behalf of the WMO. As a result, I do not see Winter Storm naming as that controversial and feel that you just don't like the proposal to use TWC names even though we wouldn't be breaching WP:NPOV or promoting the Weather Channel.Jason Rees (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really that heated? Those articles don't prove it is heated. It just says that some professionals use one term and TWC uses names. The second one even really supports what TWC does as it shows TWC has established criteria and takes care when choosing the names. Should we rename every article where professionals use another name than everyone else for an object because it might possibly be a heated topic? We have major outlets such as Vox and People using TWC names along with numerous other smaller outlets. I will link them all if you so desire. 22:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The articles describe why professionals don't use names for winter storms for scientific reasons. We are an encyclopedia not a soapbox for getting on board the naming train. You can post sources if you want... can you compare them to all of the sources that don't use the names? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What about the meteorologists and met services in Europe that DO use names for winter storms? [3][4][5] These and many others support that the names are prevalent outside TWC. [6] generic terms aren't names and don't count towards WP:COMMONNAME. NoahTalk 22:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm sorry, but WP:COMMONNAME begs to differ... we don't call things by generic terms or scientific names that the average joe can't understand. That isn't how WP works. There are several articles here where we can't disambig the titles by normal naming methods. NoahTalk 21:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are our readers suddenly mostly meteorologists? Is the population as a whole going to know what we are talking about with these articles being titled that way? The answer to both of those important questions is no, they won't. NoahTalk 22:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @ChessEric: Yes, I am aware of that discussion. Have you seen the major issue that is going on with these articles right now? This article is about the February 10–11 storm. It is not to be confused with 2021 Super Bowl Sunday nor'easter; February 11–14, 2021 North American storm complex; February 13–15, 2021 North American winter storm; or February 15–17, 2021 North American winter storm. This is utterly ridiculous... the fact that we need multiple hatnotes at the top of an article just to tell them apart. How are our readers supposed to tell these storms apart? Experienced editors already can't tell them apart so how will the others do so? These titles are unacceptable and this is really the only way to fix it. NoahTalk 21:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also the additional factor on how news stations across the country also use "unofficial" winter storm names. It is a-lot easier and a more neutral point of view to just call these storms for what they are. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Eyesnore: So we should just ignore the serious ambiguity that all of these current titles have just because TWC names aren't officially recognized? We need easily recognizable titles that don't have ambiguity. This is the way to fix the problem for these storms that have occurred very close to each other. As for other news stations, do you have any examples to support your argument? I haven't seen any other major stations that have names that have become popular. NoahTalk 22:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @ChessEric and Knowledgekid87: I read that discussion and there is nothing that tells me why Wikipedia should follow the NWS lead when the UKMO and other MetServices around the world name winter storms on behalf of the WMO. Also just because something is easier doesn't mean that we shouldn't do the thing that is harder. Jason Rees (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support, all of them. I think that not using TWC names is going to confuse alot of people by this point, as well as obstacle to getting them to GA (if there are some efforts to get the WPTC GA standards on this WikiProject, which I think would be very hard). MarioJump83! 22:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support to all. Given the overlap of the storms and further disambiguation is needed the TWC names should be used in this situation. Using TWC names should be a last resort but in this instance it would be more beneficial to the reader for clearer names. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 00:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for all. Although TWC names are not official and not the most ideal in terms of authority, they are much preferable to the current situation at hand where there are multiple notable winter storms within a short time without distinct names. With these moves I feel that the general reader would at least be much more able to distinguish between the pages. Awesomegaming (talk) 00:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild support Most readers who do not live in the United States are not familiar with Weather Channel terminolgy, and generally TWC is considered an unreliable source. Is it clear that all the storms are actually different storms at about the same time, or could some of the articles be consolidated? It is likely that in three, or ten, or twenty years that even the exact dates will be forgotten, so a clear, concise title e.g. ″COVID hurricane″ makes sense to me.Calmecac5 (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It seems to me it might be worth it to create a page (something along the lines of February 2021 Winter Storms) to discuss all of these overlapping storms which the general public would consider a single event even though they are technically not. Then the specific storms could be linked to without creating too much confusion for people interested in more specific information. WestCD (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @WestCD: that probably would be a good idea - though 2020–21 North American winter § Mid-February winter storms already does exist. These names are probably still better, though. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 01:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @WestCD and Elliot321: The public doesn't really consider all of these the same event. The dates overlap, but there are defined cutoffs between the impact of one storm and that of another in locations. For example, between the storm "Uri" and "Viola" there is almost or more than two days gap between the end of the former and the start of the latter for snowfall in many locations (such as where I am). They didn't strike the same locations at the same times is what I am trying to say. Since the impact can be found and differentiated for each of the major storms, they all should get articles. NoahTalk 01:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hurricane Noah and WestCD: I agree - but there should be a general topical overview article, since a lot of the coverage did somewhat overlap, and so did the public perception. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 01:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Elliot321: I believe that the article you linked above will be expanded in the future to accommodate a decent overview of these events, but if more events happen in the second half of this month, we may explore the option of an entirely separate overview article. NoahTalk 01:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – in any other circumstance, I would ordinarily be opposed to this sort of move to use names from the Weather Channel (which also seems like it would inevitably result in the proposed procedure given this slate of overlapping storms). But keeping their titles as-is is unacceptable. We simply cannot have a set of four article titles for which any one title could be easily confused with two others. There is not much else we can do due to the overlap of both dates and geography. Unfortunately, aside from the reliable sources that do use the Weather Channel names, reliable sources will generally refer to a nameless "winter storm" whose dates are defined only by locality covered by the reliable source. If we cannot move forward with the Weather Channel names, I would be fine with what WestCD proposed, which would be similar to how tornado outbreak sequences are treated on Wikipedia. Perhaps something like February 2021 North American winter storms, which hopefully wouldn't be too redundant with 2020–21 North American winter. I've been wracking my brain for possible geographically tailored solutions, but there's so much overlap and ambiguity that I haven't been able to come up with any. If anyone can come up with a good, minimal-ambiguity titling solution without using Weather Channel names, I'd be inclined to roll with that. —TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 01:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe they could all be combined into one article. I've never been a fan of giving every little snowstorm an article anyway. United States Man (talk) 03:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight Support, but I would like to see quotation marks around the names, like in Lake Storm "Aphid" if we're going to go this route, to make it clear that these names are unofficial. I would also like to see if the moves don't go through some way of making it clearer which storm is which with the names, either in the hatnotes somewhere (Something like This article is about the february x-x winter storm, also known as winter storm x. It is not to be confused with february y-y winter storm, also known as winter storm y, or february z-z winter storm, also known as winter storm z.) or in the first sentence of the lede. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MetricSupporter89: This isn't a usual case by any means. We have several major storms with serious ambiguity issues in their current titles that can't be solved. This is why we are here right now. I outlined the procedure above for disambiguation which is how we normally do things. With the number of storms in February that overlap, the process has failed to give us titles that lack ambiguity. NoahTalk 02:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll concede that "ice storm" needs a disambiguator, but a date (Feb. 10-11, as per the hatnote on the article page) would be good enough. As for the others, "11-14", "13-17", and "15-17" are distinct enough for me, despite the overlap. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Davidwr: Unfortunately, I simply do not agree with you that these dates are distinct enough. I also don't like the idea of having four to five hatnotes at the top of page to disambiguate these titles, which is what is going on at the ice storm article. It is quite confusing to me and others. If some experienced editors are confused, I imagine quite a few readers would be as well. NoahTalk 02:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Davidwr: We probably would be using names from local NWS offices. Buffalo named lake-effect storms (its own names) from 2012–13. After TWC started naming storms in November 2012, the higher ups at NWS ordered all NWS offices to not name winter storms period because they did not like the practice. They also forced the Buffalo office to delete any mention of the names they gave these storms. NoahTalk 03:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support using TWC unofficial names in quotes similar to Lake Storm "Aphid" for the sake of telling these articles apart, at least until better names are available. -Thespündragon 02:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose – Project policy has always been against this. We have never used these unofficial, unscientific (no scientific reasoning behind the naming process, only social impact) names, and now should not be the time to start. WP:TWC is a guideline already in place for this. We should only be naming these articles using the unofficial TWC names if all parties involved use the same name, which they do not. WP:IAR is a cop out. The best thing to do would be to combine all of these into one article, since they will inevitably be left unfinished anyway. United States Man (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I recognize there is past consensus, consensus can change. Just because that's how it has been doesn't mean that's how it has to or should be. The ambiguity with these storms is a very serious issue that needs to be addressed. I would like to point out that WP:TWC is an essay and not a guideline, and one that I challenge the legitimacy of. It appears to simply be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The so-called RFC appears to have garnered little outside involvement and simply displayed NWS good, TWC bad. I have proposed a slightly altered method of naming storms so we can fix problems like this in the future. NWS may not name winter storms, but European met services do. It is no longer a publicity stunt to name winter storms. It's actually about time for the NWS to follow Europe's lead. As for your comments about merging these, please read WP:STUB. Many of these storms are quite notable all by themselves and are expandable. They should not be merged simply because there is a chance they won't be fully fleshed out. That negates the entire purpose of stub class to begin with. NoahTalk 03:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

References

  1. ^ "No Access What's in a #Name? An Experimental Study Examining Perceived Credibility and Impact of Winter Storm Names" (Document). American Meteorological Society. doi:10.1175/WCAS-D-16-0037.1.

Go with what people are calling it (From a resident of Texas here,)

Some people call it the President's Day Snow Storm, some call it the Great Texas Snow Storm of '21 and some just call it White Harvey

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:February_2021_North_American_ice_storm&oldid=1007525025"