Talk:2021 Texas power crisis

Power Crisis

I believe the storm itself has already been sufficiently covered in other articles. However, I would see the benefit of centering this article completely around the Texas power crisis, as that has received loads of coverage and maybe rename the draft 2021 Texas Power Crisis or something like that, depending on the WP:COMMONNAME. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 17:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@EDG 543:Hi, thanks for the feedback! This sounds good to me, but I think I don't have enough edits to rename the page. Would you like to do it? Burritok (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Burritok: I have completed the move. I also rejected the draft for now. Don't fret, the article just needs to be refocused to match the new title. In other words, it needs to be focus mainly on the power crisis. I also think that more details can be added. Once that is complete, I will probably accept it. I'll also offer some help, if you don't mind. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 18:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@EDG 543: Certainly, help is very much appreciated! Thanks! I'll keep adding details wherever I can.

I can understand how water pipelines may burst in cold weather (water expands as it turns into ice) but I feel it is not possible for natural gas pipelines to burst due to cold weather, as gases expand due to heat, not due to cold.

At least twice in the article, mention is made of gas pipelines bursting due to cold. Monatowfik (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Background - Too Much Focus on the Storms?

@EDG 543: You're adding a lot of information about the storms which is not directly relevant to the power crisis in Texas. I'm all for including a section about how other locations were impacted, but I think some details about the storm's development don't belong, for example, "one half continued into Quebec and the other moving out over the Atlantic Ocean," and, "In addition, at least 49 people lost their lives in total[17] and a tornado outbreak from the storm spanned Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina resulted in several structures and trees being damaged or destroyed, and the tornado in Brunswick damaged dozens of homes and killed at least three people" — this information belongs in articles specifically about the storms. As you suggested earlier, I believe we should keep this article more focused ;) Burritok (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@AllegedlyHuman: @Davidwr: I may (emphasis on the word "may") have went a teeny bit overboard with that background section. Now, are you suggesting that the entire section be done away with? I do believe that the section is needed, but could be cut down significantly to avoid trivial details. However, I believe that the section should be similarly expanded with details regarding Texas' lack of preparedness, aging power grid, failure to learn from the 2011 incidents, etc. as those details are more relevant to the scope of this article. What do you fancy of that idea? Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 23:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I think you have the wrong person. I have not edited this article. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

AllegedlyHuman, pardon me! The user who had written this failed to sign, and I just checked my notifications and saw your name. You had mentioned me elsewhere, I see now. Sincerest apologies, sir. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 23:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

No issue. Hope you get the response you're looking for. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@EDG 543: Sorry, I forgot to sign! I agree the background section is important, just some details about the storm should probably be trimmed down. Many thanks again for all the help! Burritok (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@EDG 543: I'm not sure why you pinged me, but the lack of preparedness that led up to the major meteorological event becoming a power crisis is very relevant, in much the same way that Effects of Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico includes Effects of Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico § Infrastructure and recession. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@EDG 543: As for Burritok's suggestion to trim the background, I agree, let's keep the whole article focused on what the article is about - the 2021 Texas power crisis. Yes, there needs to be background, but the background that's irrelevant to Texas is, well, irrelevant to Texas. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Davidwr: I really do think I'm starting to lose it... You may have seen that I pinged another user before you mistakenly. Since there was no signature, I looked in my notifications to see who mentioned me, and saw him. When he pointed out my error, I made the same mistake of looking at who had mentioned me prior to that, which happened to be you. I'm terribly sorry to have wasted your time, but thank you for your valuable input nonetheless. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 01:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Nominated for ITN

Just a notice to editors that I've nominated this article for Wikipedia:In the news for February 19, 2021. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

"Names"

The Weather Channel's naming of storms should not be used in this article, as it is in the lead. The names are for marketing purposes and have no official standing. 331dot (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)