Talk:February 2021 North American ice storm

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the February 2021 North American ice storm redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

United States

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles

Weather: Non-tropical

	Weather portal This redirect 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
	This redirect is supported by the Non-tropical storms task force.

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

^ "Winter Storm Poses Weekend Ice and Snow Threat For Mid-Atlantic, Northeast". The Weather Channel. Retrieved February 12, 2021.
^ "Snow expected tonight, mainly south of D.C., before possible ice on Saturday". The Washington Post. Retrieved February 12, 2021.
^ "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

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved.

result:
No consensus. See no agreement below in regard to the proposed article renames, which is all this closure entails. Ongoing discussions that follow this closed request can be considered open and active. As for this request for these renames, the status quo remains in effect for now. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy, Healthy Publishing! (nac by page mover) P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 03:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Links: current log • target log

This is template {{subst:Requested move/end}}

– 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. Noah^Talk 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. Noah^Talk 16:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT The FCC recognizes the name Uri [1]. Noah^Talk 00:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: One of the page names updated the date in its title, so I've changed this request to reflect that. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:13, 20 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]

Exactly, they are entirely different systems and thus should have entirely different articles because they did not occur at the same time. Why should we combine the effects of storms that happened at different times? Why even bother having articles for any snowstorm or even a tornado to begin with? Noah^Talk 18:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The effects literally did happen at the same time. The days even overlap. New snow dumped on top of old snow doesn't make a different in terms on effects on an area. I'm finding your staunch defense of these names to be rather odd, but that's all I'll say. United States Man (talk) 01:59, 19 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. Noah^Talk 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]

Consensus and practices can change and adapt as time moves forward. Consensus is living and breathing, not a stiff and strict set of procedures. Noah^Talk 19:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support all I agree with this, it was hard for me to find these storms with the current names, and I'm sure the same holds true for others. Coding Cyclone ^{citation needed} 19:55, 17 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. Noah^Talk 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]
        Have you read the study I posted here or are you just going to argue that I don't like the names? You can't argue with scientific findings here. We would be breaching WP:NPOV because the topic is still heated. [2], [3] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:48, 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? [4][5][6] These and many others support that the names are prevalent outside TWC. [7] generic terms aren't names and don't count towards WP:COMMONNAME. Noah^Talk 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. Noah^Talk 21:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        ""Meteorologists outside of [The Weather Channel] sphere refer to storms by their dates," Sara Ganetis, a meteorologist at NOAA's Weather Prediction Center, told Live Science in an email." - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:50, 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. Noah^Talk 22:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely Strong oppose Please read this discussion on why we shouldn't use winter storm names. Additionally, if we name this storm using the TWC name, we will have to go back and recap EVERY storm they've named in the main winter article, and that is not necessary.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 21:15, 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. Noah^Talk 21:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you are telling me the only way to fix this is to dive into a controversial area? No.... we are a neutral encyclopedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't delving into that much of a controversial area though, as after all the WMO has approved the usage of names for Winter Storms.Jason Rees (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a reference for the WMO approving the usage of winter storm names? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:01, 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]

I agree with Hurricane Noah. If even our most experienced editors can't tell which is which, then there is no chance our readers will. Also, people, for all that is good and holy, please calm down! ~~ 🏅🌀𝕾𝖚𝖕𝖊𝖗 𝕮𝖞𝖈𝖑𝖔𝖓𝖎𝖈 𝕾𝖙𝖔𝖗𝖒 𝕮𝖔𝖗𝖔𝖓𝖆🌀🏅 18:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The frustration is shared which is why I agree with every option BUT #5. There is also the option to do a merger per below because we have the article: Mid-December 2007 North American winter storms. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like they agreed to develop the article that way in advance and some of them wanted to possibly unmerge a storm from that article. Less significant storms that occurred back to back is why they chose to combine some. We have a historic storm here and others that weren't related and are also significant by themselves. We have a lot more information out there and the world is an entirely different place than it was in 2007. I see no reason to merge articles on notable events. Noah^Talk 19:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose; winter storm names by The Weather Channel are not universally recognized in meteorology or by the WMO. Other news stations may use their own winter storm names. Eye snore 21:29, 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. Noah^Talk 22:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah: Point 5 is the one that I am opposing because it is likely to be a violation of WP:NOTADVOCACY. You should refer to the cited document by the American Meteorological Society. Also see WP:POVTITLE. Eye snore 00:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That document concludes that the names don't add credibility. Nowhere does it state that the names in and of themselves are a bad thing. We aren't promoting TWC by using their names. Are we promoting them by having an article for them? Did we promote presidential candidates by having articles about their campaigns? The answer to those is no. Just using the names is not promotion. Noah^Talk 19:23, 18 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). Mario Jump 83! 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. Noah^Talk 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. Noah^Talk 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]

That's just WP:IDONTLIKEIT... We shouldn't merge articles just because you don't like that snowstorms are getting them. If they are notable as these are, they deserve articles. Noah^Talk 19:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merging them all into one sans the ice storm would be a better idea and solve all of this mess without diving into renaming them to TWC names. It was done with Mid-December 2007 North American winter storms and I don’t see why it can’t work here either --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 17:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, the group articles listed as examples are cases of winter storms that had overlapping impacts and nearly equivalent scopes. These storms are hardly equivalent in terms of impacts nor the scope of those impacts, especially the storm responsible for the widespread blackouts in Texas, the Central U.S., and northern Mexico (Winter Storm Uri). We would run into problems if we took this route, hence why I remain staunchly opposed to this idea. We might as well merge articles like Hurricane John (2018) and Tropical Storm Ileana (2018) then. If we don't end up renaming, then I say that we should just stick with the status quo. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:07, 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]
Ultra-extreme-oppose - weather channel names aren't usually used in article titles in the Wikipedia Metric Supporter 89 (talk) 02:13, 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. Noah^Talk 02:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose using unofficial names when the existing dates provide sufficient disambiguation, as they do here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidwr: How exactly do they provide sufficient disambiguation? February 2021 ice storm can refer to almost all of these. There are also overlapping dates for many of these storms. Noah^Talk 02:22, 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. Noah^Talk 02:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question How would we have disambiguated these if there were no "unofficial names" to use? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:53, 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. Noah^Talk 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. Noah^Talk 03:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If we are going to get into "unofficial names" then here are other sources that use their own: [8], [9], [10]. I thus agree with the notion of a WP:NPOVTITLE, and challenge WP:COMMONNAME here as more sources use dates referring to the winter storm rather than using a name. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any proof that these are popularly used. [11] [12] these show nothing for two names in the past year. They clearly aren't commonly used. Dates aren't viable here since that is the whole reason we are in this situation right now. Our article naming system failed us. We aren't going out of neutral territory by just using a name in the title. Did we support Donald Trump or Joe Biden by having their names in the titles of their campaign articles and other aspects? No, we did not. Disambiguating the titles is an important task that we must complete. Just using the name to tell the storms apart doesn't mean we support TWC itself. It just means we needed to tell the storms apart and that was the best solution. Noah^Talk 19:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I agree with the all the other opposed commenters.--Jpp858 (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Per unanimous discussion at Talk:February_13–17,_2021_North_American_winter_storm#Requested_move_16_February_2021. These are made-up named by the weather channel, not official or universally used. An enhanced disambiguous page may be appropriate. Reywas92^Talk 20:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: I don't think that discussion holds any water now since at least half the people in it, myself included, have reversed course due to serious ambiguity issues associated with these article titles. Names don't have to be official to be used. The lake storm mentioned earlier in this discussion had an unofficial name from a local NWS office. All older hurricane names are unofficial (storms were numbered) and simply are one of the most common names for them. A disambiguation would still not solve the problem of these titles being ambiguous. Even the most notable storm here can't be separated from the others without going down the list of storms. Disambiguations are helpful for things that already have the same OFFICIAL names (like the various Mercury articles). These articles have no official name and we can fix the problems. Noah^Talk 20:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Black-eyed Susan has its own disambiguation page which is why the scientific name was chosen as the title for that article. It wasn't simply because the scientific name is more acceptable. Noah^Talk 22:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- "Fixing" the problem by making another (possibly worse) one isn't going to help anything. I would love to rename every plant on Wikipedia with its "unofficial name" instead of their scientific names... but we don't do that because of higher quality academic sources rather than news stories. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the reason why the scientific names are used at all. An example is the Dandelion situation. Dandelion can refer to several species and the genus, thus why the scientific names are used. This is the situation for many others as well. This is the sole reason why the commonname isn't used. There had to be disambiguation there and that was the only way to do it. Academic sources do not take precedence over news sources for determining names. The common name is what is used unless it causes disambiguation issues such as those for Dandelion. Please see WP:NOTTEXTBOOK where it describes WP is not a textbook, scientific journal, and titles should refrain from academic language. Noah^Talk 22:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Using dates isn't academic language though, and there are many uncommon names used for these storms. Again I stand by my assertion that doing this will make the problem worse for us as an encyclopedia with neutrality issues. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can stand by your stance, I just don't agree with you. The dates are the academic name since that is what the reports and official centers have adopted. We need better names for articles to be able to understand which storm is what. Noah^Talk 22:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- I do not believe we should break with the consistency of the naming conventions for winter storms to use something unofficial that has been soundly rejected in multiple places in the past just for disambiguation when we have other methods of doing so. The redirects, hatnotes, and mentions of TWC names in the leads should be sufficient for reader navigation and understanding. Reywas92^Talk 22:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the four to five hatnotes at the top? Those are quite confusing and provide no help whatsoever. Also, the TWC names have been removed from several articles entirely. Keep in mind that consensus can change and just because something has been a certain way doesn't mean that's how it should be. Noah^Talk 22:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To quote you from your own oppose (roughly 2 days ago):

"Oppose because that isn't the common name and there is consensus against TWC names. Oppose blizzard since it was just a few counties in the mountains"

yet you are now arguing...

"What about the meteorologists and met services in Europe that DO use names for winter storms? These and many others support that the names are prevalent outside TWC. generic terms aren't names and don't count towards WP:COMMONNAME."

Which one is it? You can't have it both ways. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found out in the nearly two days after that discussion when additional data came out that the TWC name had decent enough usage to be considered a common name for the storm (metric data and sources using it post storm). The arguments that others brought up and the situation that arose also convinced me that these names should be used here. Noah^Talk 22:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose all Like others have said these winter storm names are not recognized by the WMO or NWS and have no meaning. As a recall in 2012 we reached a consensus to not include winter storm names as official names. The storm names are only part of a promotional branding effort by The Weather Channel to increase viewership of its channel and revenue. We should not be changing article names solely because one private corporation chooses to name weather systems by their own methods. JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JayJay: That's not the reason at all why we are here. We aren't here just because TWC decided to name the storms. Should we just ignore the serious ambiguity issue of these article titles? The WMO has approved winter storm naming since European met services name winter storms on its behalf. The NWS just chooses not to follow Europe's lead. We need some way for these titles to be disambiguated from each other and this is literally the only viable option unless someone else has a good one. Noah^Talk 22:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah: Well we are pretty much are here because TWC decided to name the winter storms. If they never named them then news organizations would not be reporting such names. The winter storm names redirecting to their respective articles works just fine for sorting out which storm is which and separating them. Some news organizations do not use such naming conventions, an example is the AP Style Book when they issued an update in 2018 advising that "Major storm names provided by government weather agencies, the European Union or World Meteorological Organization are acceptable." then went on to say "Do not use names created by private agencies or other organizations." I also found this source from a meterologist at the NOAA Weather Prediction center saying "Meteorologists outside of [The Weather Channel] sphere refer to storms by their dates" and that "World Meteorological Organization guidelines state that only tropical cyclones (hurricanes, typhoons and their smaller cousins) get names." Also are people really going to remember the names of each of these storms that happened in such quick succession in the long-term and are they really going to matter, I think probably not. I'd also like to add that I'm not opposed to the inclusion of the winter storm names in the article, I think that would help readers know if they are on the correct article by simply reading the first sentence. JayJay^{What did I do?}

The reason I proposed this change is because we have several storms where nobody can tell which is which just looking at them. The titles should not be this ambiguous to begin with and it is a serious problem. Redirects can help, but the titles are a jumble of terminology and overlapping dates. Are these names or the overlapping dates and terminology more likely to be remembered for article titles? We need these names or at least something a lot better than the current titles for easy navigation to and between articles. It is a mess of hatnotes and trying to figure out which is which from the 2020–21 winter page. As for the storm name in the lead, it has been censored out of all of the articles (at least before someone readded it without a source). Some people are opposed to the inclusion of any TWC name in all formats. Keep in mind that just because meteorologists and style guides say not to use something doesn't mean we shouldn't per WP:NOTCENSORED. I get people may not like these names, but we haven't seen any better solutions to the problem. Noah^Talk 23:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said before, the problem with overlapping dates could easily be remedied by combining these into one article. I think you tried to say something along the lines of "the effects occurred at different times", but if that is so, then why are the dates overlapping. The impacts from cyclone to cyclone become ambiguous when you have new snow and ice on top of old snow and ice. What snow and ice caused which effects? You can't differentiate. Combine all these stubs together and make one good article with all of the effects. It can even be split into sections by day or whatever. And I noticed you have tried to throw policy at me previously, but you also use WP:IAR. So, which is it? Do you want quality information on a good article (where info is all in one place), or would you rather have a bunch of stubs, leaving readers having to go to multiple places to piece together thee story? United States Man (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the days overlap because the storms were hitting different locations at different times. They just happened to exist somewhere over the continent at the same time. We have had powerful hurricanes that hit the exact same spot virtually one after another and they all have articles. I don't see why we should merge these snowstorms here as a result. It's pretty ridiculous that you want to axe articles on notable events just because someone may or may not finish them. The whole point of stubs is for people to get involved in fixing them up and adding in new information. If there is enough content for an article to be developed, it should be kept and expanded sufficiently over time. Noah^Talk 02:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty rediculous that we have all these articles that split information into a bunch of different places. The average person doesnt know what storm hit when and where, so they would want to read about impacts all in one place. I have always been of the opinion that creating new articles for the sake of having an article is a detrimental attitude and does not help Wikipedia. Articles should be as well-written as possible, which cannot occur when you are splitting information into four places. United States Man (talk) 02:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is why the winter 2020–21 article exists. It should completely summarize all of those articles and make it readily available for those who want to read up on all of the storms at once. WP:STUBs exist so topics can be expanded and worked upon. Wikipedia is a collaboration and is meant to expand and evolve over time, not be well written from the get-go. Although that would be nice, it is in no way a requirement and we should not make it one. Noah^Talk 02:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support all (clarifying, support all moves, not the criteria necessarily). I'm going to copy my comment from Uri's page here: February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm → Winter Storm Uri – Following on the last RM, which was procedurally closed, I'd like to propose this again. Per WP:COMMONNAME, Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used. This says that we do not "wait" for an "official" name to be given, and that unofficial names are just as acceptable, and sometimes even more so. Per the article naming criteria, a title must be recognizable, natural, precise, concise, and consistent. The current title fails three of those criteria. The proposed title fails only one (consistency, but that can be remedied). The current title is ambiguous, as it overlaps with at least one other article. The current title is not natural, as most people do not discuss storms in terms of dates past a month. The current title is not concise because... well that one should be obvious. The proposed title is recognizable, natural, precise, and concise - which meets almost all of the criteria for naming.
While I completely understand why people do not want to support a "commercialization" of storms/disasters/etc, this is a much different situation than when TWC first introduced their naming system. As of now, even Google has taken on the name Winter Storm Uri, as have multiple other reliable sources, but not any of the "big" sources such as major national networks. To look at an unbiased view, one can look at news organizations which don't compete with NBC (who own TWC). In international news, the proposed title is used almost exclusively to refer to this storm. For these reasons, I feel that there is no policy-based reason to not move this page. A local consensus to violate the naming policy by prohibiting names that are clearly in the best compliance with that policy does not override the project-wide consensus of that policy. - I think that reasoning applies to all of these in one way or another. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We will come back here in a year and these articles will be half-written trash. I've seen it happen before. United States Man (talk) 02:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See the comment I left below on the other trash statement. Noah^Talk 02:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion Break 1

Comment Maybe we should just consolidate all those articles into one and name it "February 2021 North American winter storm series" or something similar to that. While all of the winter storms are notable enough to be featured on Wikipedia, the most notable of them remains this one ("Uri"/Feb 13-16 event). I am thinking of something similar to the 2020 Central Vietnam floods article, which had several storms listed there. As for the unofficial use of the TWC name, I was thinking about it: there really was a consensus before that TWC names should not be used as article titles but that was nearly a decade ago. Yet, "Uri" is not that much used by the major news outlets in the U.S., they only refer to this system as a winter storm that occurred from February 13 to 15/16. However, "unofficial" names have been used as article titles here, albeit for tropical systems; for instance, Tropical Depression Wilma (2013) used the PAGASA name, which is deemed unofficial outside the jurisdiction of that weather agency. Then again, PAGASA is a national weather agency; The Weather Company is not. Vida0007 (talk) 20:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vida0007: The issue with some of those is that the effects could NOT be separated from other storms and there was no way of telling which storm did what. We don't have that problem here since many of these hit different areas at different times with clear cut-offs. Several storms at that article also have their own articles and the effects are just summarized. Yes, PAGASA is not an official namer of tropical cyclones. Just because TWC is not a government agency doesn't mean we should simply toss them aside when their names are used in many news sources (including People and Vox which I linked above in earlier discussion). Noah^Talk 20:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah: That's what I thought too. After all, other systems -- including extratropical ones -- have been unofficially named and bore those names in their respective articles; Typhoon Cobra and the Braer Storm are the best examples of that. Frankly, I would have actually voted for a mild support on the name change but I hesitated after I laid out my points in my original comment. EDIT: Also, just to add: I think FU Berlin already gave Uri another name (Belrem if I am not mistaken). Here is the link. Vida0007 (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC) [Edited by Vida0007 (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)][reply]

@Vida0007: Unfortunately, it violates WP:OR to interpret the Uri as that system based on just the map alone. There is no proof that WTC's Uri is FU BERLIN's Belrem since there is no text to link them as the same. There is a whole slew of hurricanes in the 1940s and further back that have unofficial names that just became one of the most commonly used names. We ignored the official names in favor of recognizable ones. NHC numbered systems as TS 1, HU 2, HU 3, TS 4, etc.. that occurred before naming was accepted for tropical cyclones. They are designations and also the technical names if you want to get into the nitty-gritty of that. I don't see what all the fuss is here about using a more recognizable name for these storms. To boot, we can't even tell these ones apart due to the date overlap. At least the old hurricanes had designations where you could tell those apart. Noah^Talk 20:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: At least one U.S. government agency appears to be using the name "Uri", which should - for this storm at least - be good enough: the FCC. 88.1.34.215 (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioProtIV, Knowledgekid87, ChessEric, Eyesnore, MetricSupporter89, Davidwr, United States Man, Jpp858, Reywas92, JayJay, and Vida0007: I wanted to make sure everyone who is opposing because the names are not official and those who are on the fence for the issue are made aware of this recent development. The FCC and Homeland Security Bureau are now using Winter Storm Uri for official reports at the link in the above comment. [13] Noah^Talk 00:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't change my opinion. I just wonder why you're so hell bent on using these names. United States Man (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I figured it wouldn't, but I shouldn't show bias as to who I ping as that is wrong. I reasoned that unless the weather gods and goddesses speak out in support of naming, you wouldn't change your mind since you have spoken out against TWC names since they started. I wonder why some people are so hellbent on not using the names to fix a serious ambiguity issue, and why they would rather have no or insufficient coverage of these events than use the names. Noah^Talk 02:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The ambiguity could be fixed by simply combining all these stubs into one quality article, like I explained above. And please don't try to shove more "policy" down my throat. @Knowledgekid87: has made some good points here I believe. United States Man (talk) 02:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Hurricane Noah: This may sound like a dumb question, but if we do this, shouldn't we make summaries for ALL named winter storms? It doesn't really make sense to not do that since windstorms and tropical cyclones are all given respective sections, even if their effects are minor. That was my main reason for opposing the change.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 01:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ChessEric: There is an article 2020–21 North American winter where they are summarized. Noah^Talk 01:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah: I know that, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about every winter storm that as ever received a NAME.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 02:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ChessEric: Well, most of them already have articles, but are at other titles. We didn't have serious ambiguity problems until all these storms decided to occur at the same time. Noah^Talk 02:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The ambiguity could easily be cleared up by combining all these into a quality article. Nothing says that every cyclone has to have its own winter storm article. I feel like it would make it easier for the reader to find all the impacts on one page. Perhaps broken down into sections by location or date? United States Man (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ChessEric: I firmly belive that every named storm should be recorded on Wikipedia, but to what depth is debatable as for example I would personally not hesitate to put a Severe Tropical Cyclone in other systems if it was only in a basin for say 12 hours.Jason Rees (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah and Jason Rees: Sorry. Let me further clarify. I meant a TWC name.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 00:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can either have multiple articles with the potential to expand and have in-depth and complete coverage or one article that isn't allowed to go in depth at all and must summarize each of these events... ie what the winter article already does to a lesser scale. Nothing says that having one article is better than multiple or that it will be higher quality. You suggest having one single article when we have a historic impact in Texas that has crippled the state and left significant damage. Many of these storms are significant in their own right and deserve their own articles. Noah^Talk 02:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We will come back here in a year and these articles will be half-written trash. I guarantee it. United States Man (talk) 02:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so, but at least there is a seed from which a sapling can sprout and grow into a strong and mighty tree with the help of editors who come across it and wish to expand it. Noah^Talk 02:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you'd rather have readers going four different places to read impacts that occurred pretty much simultaneously. Impacts occur separate from precipitation, so how do you split up that information? Do you want do be doing readers a disservice by putting all this information in numerous places? It looks like it to me. United States Man (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't doing them a disservice by covering all of the events in the manner that is appropriate. Notable storms deserve their own articles. It's as simple as that. You split the impact up by checking what storm was hitting the area at the time the impact occurred. If several houses were damaged during storm X and storm Y happened two days later, we can attribute it to storm X. As for my future participation in this discussion, I feel like I should let it progress on from here without heavy involvement. I will answer any questions that arise, but I am no longer to going to reply to other statements. Noah^Talk 02:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It also doesn't change my opinion here. If the National Hurricane Center and WMO didn't name hurricanes then would you still feel the same way? It has been proven that in the case of hurricanes they are given names to help aid shipping. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes because dates and numbers are insufficient. Look at all the old hurricanes that were given unofficial names by the people who discussed them which are now common names. Names allow for people to easily recognize an event. There is little connection between a group of dates or simple numbering. Noah^Talk 02:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we start naming tornado outbreaks? Those will be MUCH easier to remember. In fact, I'm gonna contact TWC about that. United States Man (talk) 02:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with United States Man and Vida0007's suggestion to consolidate these a bit. Even if meteorologically they are distinct storms, the consequences of them overlap and it's better to provide such context together rather than fractured and duplicated. Reywas92^Talk 05:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I supported the move (as a last resort measure), but as I mentioned above I would also be comfortable with consolidating the four articles into one article. Given overlapping impacts of the winter storms and the lack of definite boundaries between events, it would make sense to discuss their impacts in totality by region. The structure of that article should be impact-driven and subdivided by region rather than subdivided into what one winter storm did versus the next. I remain strongly opposed to keeping their titles as-is, and in fact we can already see edits conflating one storm with either another storm or the aggregate effects. —TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 16:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very extreme strong oppose The Weather Channel isn't an World Meteorological Organization accepted national meteorological institute, but a private media outlet. We won't name legislature by its Fox News naming so why we should start using TWC names? Those names are wile unknown while the NWS names let easily identify storms by its more or less precise location. --Matthiasb (talk) 03:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – The proposed renamings fly in the face of past consensus, and we shouldn't let the name created by a single private company guide our naming policy. If people want to use those names to navigate to this page, that's why redirects exist. RunningTiger123 (talk) 06:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I strongly oppose the proposed five-step method for naming storms. It would lead the majority of storms to use a month-year system or something derived from that, but a few cases would not use that, and it would be very difficult to figure out how those storms line up with the others. Consistency is generally what we should strive for. RunningTiger123 (talk) 06:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose all. The move proposal claims that these date names are confusing, but they are still clearer and less confusing than the proposed names, which are not only unofficial but also promotional and not generally adopted by other sources than their originator. —Lowellian (reply) 10:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all renames I've been watching the news coverage and haven't heard any of these names; I don't see them as the COMMONNAME and comments suggest we historically avoid names just used by one TV channel. No idea how to merge these into something less confusing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per United States Man. I have never heard of these names and they sound pretty confusing and unused. A search yields only a limited number of results. Also, Uri seems to have multiple different spellings, so such a name per title criteria would not be precise. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 23:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the reasoning behind the existing consensus. The closing admin should also have a word with someone about the obvious WP:BLUDGEONing going on here. —{Canuck lehead} 23:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, there is precedent for using unofficial names on Wikipedia for signifcant events: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Storm_of_the_Century Lfax-nimbus (talk) 02:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "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.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Option Two: Obliterate and Condense into One

These discussions, options two and three, appear to have stopped and we see no agreement below for these options. The merge option four seems to be ongoing and active, and so will not be closed at this time. Editors should consider installing the {{Merge to}} and {{Merge from}} templates where appropriate. See also WP:MERGE. P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 03:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have been quite passionately trying to save these articles but the above discussion is just going into a trainwreck and likely won't result in anything useful. While it goes against my belief that these should be their own articles, this is likely the only option that will garner any kind of majority support and will fix the problem of the names, so here it is. The TWC names as a last resort for these titles aren't popular amongst a decent chunk of people. There is the second option in which we obliterate all of these existing articles and condense it all down into one. Under this proposal, I suggest the movement of February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm to Mid-February 2021 North American winter storms with the remaining articles being merged in. Noah^Talk 18:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I support this option, considering it saves face and will lead to a lot less confusion. This is pretty much what Mid-December 2007 North American winter storms is structured. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 18:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also wholeheartedly support this option per my arguments above. United States Man (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would support this option as it is the most convenient to readers and less confusing to editors. JayJay^{What did I do?} 19:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Readers will be best served by consolidating this information. It can provide dates/TWC names/details of the individual storms to avoid ambiguity but provide what people want to know in one place since the media coverage largely does not distinguish them. Reywas92^Talk 19:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose – Each of the storms are notable enough on their own to merit their own articles, and we already have one that is well-written enough (Winter Storm Uri) to stand on its own. The people who opposed the renaming proposal above decided that they wanted ambiguous titles over ones that are more distinct, so I don't see why we shouldn't oblige them here. I think we should stick with the status quo and develop each of the individual articles separately. This merger proposal bodes badly for any articles in this topic that are currently Stub-Class articles, as well as similar articles in other topics. If we're going to take this route, why not merge Hurricane Eta and Hurricane Iota together? (Because this is basically what this is, though the only differences are that both of those storms have official names and have fully-developed articles, but the underlying principle is the same.) Or how about Hurricane Laura and Hurricane Marco? And why don't we go ahead and merge all 4 nor'easter articles from March 2018? In fact, why don't we merge every single Stub-Class location article, since they barely have any content at all? (There are probably hundreds of them.) Where does this end? Where do we draw the line? And if all 4 articles are to be merged, what's to keep the new article from being trashy in quality, since none of you who voted "oppose" in the previous discussion even bothered to put in the time or the energy to patch up the articles in question (save for two of the editors who voted "oppose")? I'm not saying that the final, merged article will end up being trash or end up excluding significant portions of information from its former counterparts, but the possibility is really concerning me. Quality should take the highest priority here, and if we can't produce a high-quality merger with all of the information present, then I don't think we should even bother with a merger at all. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the closing admin: If this discussion closes in favor of a merge, please perform a history merge on all 4 articles and ensure that all of the content gets carried over into the new, merged article. I would hate to see any content loss come out of this sh**storm of a discussion, especially under these circumstances. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm not sure the first two articles were that notable to begin with, and the fact the impact compounds from one storm to another doesn't make an individual storm notable. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 19:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merging regardless of the name debate, which is a total mess, merging these would cause far more confusion and problems. Topical overview yes, having additional articles, also yes. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 21:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elliot321: Could you please elaborate on your concerns? I am curious as to what problems you feel may arise from this. Noah^Talk 21:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Noah: they are different events - just because they happened at about the same time doesn't mean they should be lumped together. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 22:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Cram them all into one. It's possible to write in summary fashion a condense article regarding the effects of these storms. Here is an example: January 2010 North American winter storms. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 22:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. Cram them all into one. is what I call original research or trying to establish a theory. --Matthiasb (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose – I understand the "strength" of the oppose makes no difference in terms of the argument, but figured it's best to say how I feel about this. Ideally all of these articles would be fleshed out into full articles, but if we *had* to merge some of the articles, I'd merge all the small articles (i.e. February 2021 North American ice storm, February 11–14, 2021 North American storm complex, and February 15–19, 2021 North American winter storm) into the main winter article before I'd arbitrarily merge them into a separate article associating them by month. That's one of the biggest reasons I started the "North American winter" series of articles in the first place. All of those articles are small enough that you could essentially merge all of their content into the main winter article, with the only loss being maybe a few images, and they could still remain separate events within the winter article without creating a new "mid-February storms" topic arbitrarily. And say we did this -- it wouldn't preclude later expansion into independent articles again. Heck, just as a proof-of-concept, I may create a sandbox to illustrate this when I get the chance. Master of Time (talk) 23:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose merging them all together into one article for reasons already stated by other people. For what it's worth I still think there should be a seperate overarching "Mid-February 2021 winter storms" type article as I mentioned in a comment above. WestCD (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from a total outsider: I've seen some coverage of these storms here in Australia, but often disconnected snippets on social media, drowned out by various local controversies. I came to Wikipedia in the hope of a clear overview and a general narrative. I now feel more confused. I am surprised there is not one general overview article, and I would consider one beneficial, especially to capture cumulative effects. I also do not think this means individual storm articles need to be deleted if they meet the notability requirements; the overview would provide summaries and link to more detailed articles, as we do in so many other situations. Axver (talk) 04:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I do not believe that merging them into one article is going to clarifying anything and will only add to confusion. In the United States, we do not have a history of naming winter storms and it would be unfamiliar to most. I echo many of the same sentiments of Master of Time. Jurisdicta (talk) 12:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; obliterate. this is getting needlessly obscure. yes, please consolidate ALL articles on this into ONE article. the differing storms and phenomena can be covered ! BETTER that way, NOT worse. --Sm8900 (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose per LightandDark2000 as articles meet the notability guideline and are distinct storms. Perhaps there could also be an overview page, but that's needlessly complicated. Each storm having its own page, along with a disambiguation, seems like the most sensical way to do this. — Twassman [Talk·Contribs] 03:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I am more in favor of keeping the articles separate, but with the overlapping impacts and low article quality, I am also fine with merging them. HurricaneCovid _(contribs) 17:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Option Three: Accept the status quo, and focus the discussions per article

I feel this is turning into a long drawn out debate because editors want a solution, but we are all trying to lump too many things together. Instead of a naming convention, why not wrap this up and have a name change discussion per storm based on merit? This would kick the can down the road for later discussions but we can save that for the summertime. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think breaking it down storm by storm is going to help the problem since it affects a group. Considering no alternative names have been proposed and nobody has been able to come up with a naming solution using the normal naming procedures, I say we just let this continue so people can bring forth possible solutions. It has only been two days, so the discussion is still young. Either now or later, the problem still exists. I would rather us keep trying to eliminate the problem then cease for 3 months and then come back. We need to at least wait a week for this discussion to see where it pans out. Closing it now is quite premature. Just let it run its course. Noah^Talk 01:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think its better to get things sorted now rather than shove the conversation down the line and its good that we are having this conversation even if you don't like it as it shows that the weather project on Wikipedia is alive and healthy.Jason Rees (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose status quo - I have no idea what these articles should be called, or if it would be feasible to merge them into a single location (which would be the least confusing option), but looking at this I would accept anything over the current status quo. The current articles are utterly confusing and several of them could easily be mistaken for another. The ice storm article, for instance, could be referring to any of the other articles. This is particularly confusing for non-Americans also. BlackholeWA (talk) 08:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If we fail to gain consensus on any of the options, we will be left with the status quo. However, I completely disagree with the idea of maintaining the status quo temporarily only to delay resolution of this discussion. We should settle this issue now, so either we come up with a consensus in this general discussion or we accept the status quo. Postponing further discussion won't help us at all. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Option Four: Alternative merge option

Clear consensus to merge the articles in question. However, there is some support for retaining the last article in question (February 15–20, 2021 North American winter storm) on grounds of notability. Content from the first two articles will be merged into 2020–21 North American winter. Closing, per WP:SNOW. (Non-administrator closure) LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Posting this on behalf of Master of Time. His proposal is to merge three of the articles, excluding February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm, back into their respective sections at 2020–21 North American winter. February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm could either remain at its current title or be moved to another. That title move would be another discussion entirely, but at least there wouldn't be several article title issues and we wouldn't be lumping multiple storms together. Noah^Talk 00:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support – This actually seems like the better option as the 13–17 storm has the most polished out content (and the most far-ranging impacts). In fact, I actually did something similar to this for the blitz of storms in late February 2015, while only making pages for the two that stood out the most/had the most severe impacts. I think it can work here too. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This proposed merger is better than doing nothing and avoids the storm naming debate. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Fine with me. I never understand making an article for every hurricane/tornado/snowstorm anyway. It gets a bit ridiculous around here. Almost like people are hat collecting with article creation. A merger seems to be the best option. United States Man (talk) 05:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support because out of all the winter storms this month, the most notable (and most destructive) is the Feb 13-17 event. The other storms should have concise sections in the 2020–21 North American winter page though; if ever those would be lengthy maybe a separate article detailing those three events (Feb 10-12, 11-14 & 15-19) would do. Vida0007 (talk) 09:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is the simplest method to handle the year's winter. If an article split is needed, then it'll be applied when the content is too long. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 05:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I live in Oklahoma and I thought storm #4 needed an article from what I went through...but for the sake of keeping the peace, this seems like the best option.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 05:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support This seems like a fair solution to the debate over the various February winter storm names since it sort of nullifies any need to rename the Feb. 13-17 storm. Springfield2020 (talk) 14:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest support no need to explain 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 18:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sounds good; looks like a good compromise. I think this is the best option out of all of them. PeterPrettyCool (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support... with a slight change This seems to be a good idea, although I think the Feb 15-20 storm (Viola)'s article needs to stay too. After all, the Feb 15-20 storm was a Category 3, just like the Feb 13-17 one and was definitely article-worthy. It caused 19 fatalities, 530,000 power outages, and a second round of heavy snow to the South; it was definitely article-worthy. The other articles can be merged, but the Feb 13-17 and Feb 15-20 storms need to stay. HurricaneCovid _(contribs) 23:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, but Keep Winter Storm Viola's article – I honestly do not like any of the other options being presented in this discussion, but it looks like consensus is building towards this option, in some form. If we can merge the content so that the new sections in the winter article contain all of the information pertaining to the merged storm articles, then I guess I would be fine with it. However, the article for Winter Storm Viola (the February 15–20 storm) should be kept. At this point, the article has become significantly better-developed than it was when this discussion was first opened, and there will probably be more content additions in the near future. Additionally, it has become quite clear that the storm itself became much more significant than most of us thought it would be. The storm is rated as a Category 3 winter storm on the RSI scale, which is no small deal, especially since Winter Storms Orlena (the major nor'easter at the start of the month) and Uri (the winter storm responsible almost the entirely of the blackouts) also have the same rating. The storm also killed at least 20 people and caused over 530,000 blackouts, and it further compounded the damage already done by Uri. Therefore, I think that should we choose to go with this merger, we should merge the first two articles (Winter Storms Shirley and Tabitha), but keep the article for Winter Storm Viola. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you would talk in non-TWC promo language we might be able to understand which storms you are talking about. You mentioned in the section above about not being able to gain consensus, but when one has finally formed here, you don't want to go along with it. It is really an unfortunate situation that all these storms occurred at the same time, but combining them seems to be the only option to avoid confusion. United States Man (talk) 01:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@United States Man: He's right though: The February 15–20 winter storm was indeed a Category 3, just like the February 13–17 storm and the nor'easter at the beginning of February. In fact, it scored a higher RSI value than that of the January 31 – February 3, 2021 nor'easter. Also, more content has been added and polished in the article, and the quality has improved from when it was first created. It killed at least 20 people, caused over 500K power outages, and likely caused (at least) millions of dollars in damage. It was definitely an article-worthy storm, and deserves an article to itself. The other winter storm articles, besides the February 13–17 and February 15–20 storms, can be merged. Also, people are unlikely to mix up those two storms in particular, given the names include specific dates. As MarioProtIV said, he kept two articles (not one) for the two most major storms in the 2015 Snow Blitz. We can do that here too; the 13-17 and 15-20 storms are the most major two, as they ranked at least a Category 3. HurricaneCovid _(contribs) 19:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:TWC

I figured I would add this here to get additional editors to pitch in. We should have something to point to rather than rehasing the name arguments over and over again. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If we are going to entitle the essay Wikipedia:Winter Storms then we need to ensure that we stay neutral and point out that winter storms are named by national meteorological agencies including the UKMO, Met Erriean, Meteo France, AEMET (Spain), KNMI (Denmark), IPMA (Portugal) and FU Berlin.Jason Rees (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah good point... since the issue only effects the United States would adding the country in the title help? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If that page is mean to outline the arguments time and time again then I think it should be included, after all it was an argument used above to try and remind people that the idea behind naming winter storms, isn't with all due respect as stupid as some think it is.Jason Rees (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's no different/smarter/more stupid than tropical cyclone naming, but the issue many have is with using names from an unofficial commercial source rather than from an official or government agency, which I believe most if not all European names come from. So probably adding United States into that would indeed help. United States Man (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done I added the name of the country, feel free to add to the essay. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8081:3E01:CA05:7D6D:8CF:4829:ED27 (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This just adds to the problem and confusion as everyone is giving this storm "unofficial" names. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And no, we're not adding The Weather Channel's names. TWC IS NOT AFFILIATED WITH THE National Weather Service. ~ AC5230 talk 18:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no policy against using unofficial names, when that's what's commonly used. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 21:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AC5230: The rest of the naming agencies including UKMO, Met Erieann, AEMET, PAGASA, JMA etc are not "affiliated with the National Weather Service." So if we were to follow your reasoning we would have to remove all of those names - hell Papua New Guinea are also called the NWS.Jason Rees (talk) 23:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are just circling the debate around again here... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Separate article for Texas situation?

It seems like the weather-related events of mid-February 2021 in the state of Texas merit their own article, because there seem to be numerous energy grid factors that led into the storm, and other aspects of significant disruption that were not seen in neighboring states to anywhere near the degree seen in Texas. It also seems reasonable to assume (and I know we are not a crystal ball...) that there will be political, governmental, economic, and policy ramifications stemming from these events for some time to come. Perhaps February 2021 winter storms in Texas? Does anyone have any thoughts on that? KConWiki (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There are many news articles about the Texas situation that would support a standalone article.

Also, the hatnote: "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 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm; or February 15–17, 2021 North American winter storm." has me thoroughly confused. Are these unified somewhat in their impact, so that to people outside meteorology, they seem to be related? If so, it might be nice to have a blurb somewhere (if not a whole page) that summarizes the different articles and explains the differences between them. --Hirsutism (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. The TX situation, while especially dire, is not separate from the impacts in the surrounding areas. ~ AC5230 talk 18:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought maps like this and reporting that the worst power outages are in the ERCOT region of Texas indicated that, while not entirely contained in the Texas/ERCOT region, was much more pronounced there. --Hirsutism (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Burritok started a draft for this at Draft:2021 Texas power crisis, which I think would be quite reasonable to move to mainspace, focusing on the effects in Texas rather than the weather itself. Reywas92^Talk 19:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

THanks- I have looked at that and I hope that we can get that moved along into mainspace in a prompt manner. KConWiki (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's been moved (not by me). Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 22:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add Cruz-Cancun?

Should we add the Cruz-Cancun to this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avishai11 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, unless the fallout from that trip leads to some change that is "storm-" or "emergency-preparedness-related". For example, if it results in a state law prohibiting certain state and local officials from leaving the state during an emergency (even though such a law would not apply to a US Senator), then it might have a place in this article. Otherwise, it's just trivia. It may have a place on Ted Cruz if the fallout affects his career though. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the 1st and 2nd Texas winter storms

I don't mean to restart any debate here, as I do agree with the decision to merge the first and second winter storms that impacted Texas. However, I'd like to know- is it possible to have an entire article (like "February 2021 North American ice storms") that provides greater coverage on the first and second ice storms (which I'll call Shirley and Tabitha respectively, if you don't mind)? There is no doubt that Shirley and Tabitha's impacts weren't severe as Uri and Viola's, but I think it would be good if some more information regarding the first two storms was placed in an article.

In case you're wondering what structure it would be in, it would have Shirley and Tabitha's sections, with information about their meteorological histories, impacts, etc., and then have Uri and Viola's sections in a similar style, except with links to their respective articles. Presidentofyes12 (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[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.

[4] "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.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]