Talk:2022–23 European windstorm season

Hurricane Martin

The 2022 Atlantic hurricane season has Martin's damages listed as none and areas affected as none, should we merge the two? Mitch199811 (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

What defines a windstorm? Criteria for naming?

I can't find this on a page. If a meteorologist thinks a windy day deserves a name, is that enough? Is there a minimum wind speed? A maximum central barometric pressure? A damage requirement? I think this info should be at the top or in the lede so we know what the article is about. I have no idea what the criteria are. I live in the US, and every type of storm has a quantified definition (e.g., a blizzard requires 35 mph wind for 3 hours and visibility of 1/4 mile or less from falling or blowing snow). Without a definition, this article is about nothing in particular. Dcs002 (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Even if there a few many storms, I still think that it would reach notability requirements. ✶Mitch199811✶ 19:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Dcs002 Hello, I know that in the UK's naming list, we do only name storms if Amber or Red weather warnings are issued by the Met Office, I think this is also the case with France's naming list, while the Italian and Greek naming lists I'm not to sure about. Many of these storms are named by the FUB (Free University of Berlin), but cause little to no damage as the FUB names every low pressure across the European continent. So, I think that most of the FUB storms should be removed, and leave major impacting ones (e.g. Bettina). 2A02:C7C:5699:B300:1942:6E39:49DD:3BAF (talk) 08:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, can we get that information into the article, along with the criteria for a windstorm to cause an amber or red warning, if that's what's required for naming? I don't know that terminology because I'm not from the UK or France. That's local knowledge that we can't assume the reader already knows. I still don't have any sense of what a named windstorm is, or what qualifies a storm to be discussed here, and that's what this article is about. Thanks! Dcs002 (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Dcs002 On the UK's Meteorological Service website, the Met Office do state: "The criteria we use for naming storms is based on our National Severe Weather Warnings service. This is based on a combination of both the impact the weather may have, and the likelihood of those impacts occurring. A storm will be named when it has the potential to cause an amber or red warning.

Other weather types will also be considered, specifically rain if its impact could lead to flooding as advised by the Environment Agency, SEPA and Natural Resources Wales flood warnings. Therefore 'storm systems' could be named on the basis of impacts from the wind but also include the impacts of rain and snow. When the criteria for naming a storm are met, either the Met Office, Met Éireann or KNMI can name a storm." EuropeanXTwisters (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, but I raised the question in reference to the article, not for my benefit. That kind of information needs to be in the article, at least regarding what defines a windstorm. (Rain and flooding events seem to be outside the scope of this article, which is about a windstorm season.) I still don't have any idea what is defined as a windstorm, and this article is about windstorms. The article needs improving. Yes, I want that information for my own knowledge, but it needs to be in the article, not on the discussion page. If definitions vary by country, that should be addressed in the article, but at minimum, this article needs to state what it's about at a fundamental level. Dcs002 (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The Storms

Please work more concentrated! Because I see that some storms have gusts of “55 km/h, 65 km/h” which isn’t possible. 55-65 km/h is a slight breeze, not a storm! And if it really was only 55-65 km/h, please remove it, because that is not a storm. A storm has gusts of >100 km/h. 2A02:A44C:6682:1:E4EF:F647:2FD0:4848 (talk) 12:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Where do you see that “55 km/h” is not a storm? Which agency says that? Elijahandskip (talk) 13:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

What agency says it is a storm, or worthy of a name? That's the important question. As described above, this article gives no definition of what a windstorm is or the criteria for naming windstorms. The subject of this article is not defined. I think that's a major problem. There is nothing here that says what this article is about, and this disagreement illustrates that perfectly. (That would be a breezy autumn day here in American Midwest.) Dcs002 (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Appalling Grammar

When reading this article I discovered grotesque and immature grammar. Momentarily, me and two others are correcting it, but I encourage others to do this too. After all, readers are supposed to be assured that the article was written by adults. 2A02:A44C:6682:1:C8DA:9486:F8CC:BFB0 (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello madam/sir,

I don’t quite understand what you mean exactly. Could you point out exactly what your concerned about? Egghead2000 (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Egghead2000 I mean that the editors who edit this article, for instance: Dcs002 (talk · contribs) & Greyzxq (talk · contribs). Can’t write an article without typo’s & immature grammar. They prefer “unknown” over “unspecified”, and prefer “notifications” over “cases”. And then they have the audacity to call me an idiot. Basically. And I’m just giving criticism and being direct, yet they all act like I told them to cut their arm off. And I find it disgustingly annoying. It once again shows how pathetic and immature people are nowadays… what a sad world… 2A02:A44C:6682:1:6068:A2F8:2224:118 (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Unknown is a valid word used in meteorological articles, and you need to specify what mature is. Also, I have seen you revert criticism for "talking bad about other editors." ✶Mitch199811✶ 01:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mitch199811 (talk · contribs) When your out in public, how often do you hear “unknown”? And how often do you hear “unspecified”? When an accountant doesn’t know something, they say “unspecified”. When at the supermarket, they use the word “unspecified”. Unspecified just sounds better than “unknown”. Unspecified sounds more professional. Maturity - Professionalism - Clarity, those are the things I suggest people keep in mind. They have a lot in common those words. With “mature” I mean common sense. And yes, I have been reverting vandalism, because some users have been getting all snobbish and arrogant towards me, because they think that they’re superior to everyone else. I call does type of people a “self supremest”.

2A02:A44C:6682:1:2D2C:D0EA:3CA6:66E9 (talk) 08:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Unknown because that is the word relevant. Which word we use depends on context, unknown would be for deaths and prices while un- or not-specified could be for values considered unimportant (wind speed). And by calling them "pathetic" and "immature" you don't help your case. What he is trying to say is that you are making an issue out of something he doesn't perceive as important. Not trying to personally attack you, but I would like to ask you if you are a native speaker. ✶Mitch199811✶ 13:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mitch199811 (talk · contribs) Native speaker of what? You didn’t quite specify that ;)

English, German, French, Spanish, Chinese?

I’m a master at languages, I’m bilingual! 2A02:A44C:6682:1:2D2C:D0EA:3CA6:66E9 (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mitch199811 (talk · contribs) I’m a native speaker of many languages. English, German, Dutch & Danish.

That’s why I can detect immature grammar easily,

Unknown doesn’t sound professional, that is why it’s immature. Wikipedia is supposed to be professional and for adults, and adults prefer professional and mature grammar. Therefore I think we should use posh words like for instance “unspecified”. 2A02:A44C:6682:1:2D2C:D0EA:3CA6:66E9 (talk) 15:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

At this point I will ask for dispute resolution but it may be a bit as I have stuff to do in real life. ✶Mitch199811✶ 17:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mitch199811 (talk · contribs) Wait a moment… let me just correct your grammar there… Your wrote this:

“ At this point I will ask for dispute resolution but it may be a bit as I have stuff to do in real life.”

What you wrote there doesn’t make any sense, and this is exactly what I mean when I talk about bad grammar.

Let me correct it, because what you meant to write is this:

“At this point, I would ask for a resolution to this dispute. But it may be a bit… (a bit what?). Because I have stuff to do in real life.”

Now it’s corrected, so there ;)

2A02:A44C:6682:1:2D2C:D0EA:3CA6:66E9 (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Please stop being snarky and here. ✶Mitch199811✶ 19:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mitch199811 (talk · contribs) Literally what is snarky about correcting grammar? I’m literally a grammar & writing tutor, mind you. So I was just teaching you a little grammar lesson, that’s all, I do this every week day.

And that what you call “snarky” is just directness, directness is necessary, it’s how pupils learn.

2A02:A44C:6682:1:2D2C:D0EA:3CA6:66E9 (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Replying to: Dcs200

Readers are supposed to be able to recognize that this article was written by adults, and not by children. Unfortunately I have had to correct A LOT. And I haven’t misspelled a single word, because I use autocorrect, it seems nobody else uses it. And unfortunately people aren’t able to handle directness… 2A02:A44C:6682:1:8598:DBE7:E661:B2BA (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

People with English language skills that are not as advanced as your computer's auto-correct function are also welcome to edit these articles to the best of their abilities. There is nothing wrong with doing so, and their participation should be encouraged. Characterizing errors in judgemental ways (appalling, grotesque, and immature) works against the community nature of WP, and they might be considered personal attacks. It is our job as a community to use our strengths to improve articles. If your strength is improving grammar, then I am glad you are contributing in that way, but your harsh criticisms are superfluous to what we do here. If you see something that you can improve, then please improve it. Your harsh judgements do not serve to make this a better encyclopedia or a more inclusive project. If you see a problem, please fix it.

And please don't start a new section to reply to a comment made in another section. Dcs002 (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I think your view on this individual's criticism is a bit misinterpreted. I think he or she is just trying to help, and is just being direct. Egghead2000 (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Egghead2000 (talk · contribs) Oh yes! It’s misinterpreted alright,

I am direct, directness is 100% necessary on Wikipedia.

I’m all in for calling a spade, a spade.

2A02:A44C:6682:1:2D2C:D0EA:3CA6:66E9 (talk) 08:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Replying to: Elijahandskip

Any Meteorological institute will tell you that 55 km/h is a slight breeze. Where I’m from, 55 km/h is the average every day windspeed. 2A02:A44C:6682:1:8598:DBE7:E661:B2BA (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

WP articles need reliable sources for article content if there is any chance that the content might be disputed. As the definitions of what constitutes a windstorm seem to vary by region, there is a good chance of dispute, so a reliable source should be cited, not an assumption of what any meteorological institute might say. And please keep discussions within their section. (Please don't start new sections as a way of replying to ongoing discussions.) That scatters the discussion and makes it hard to track. Dcs002 (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Dcs002 (talk · contribs) And which sources do you want then? Because every agency has a difference of classifications for storms. 2A02:A44C:6682:1:2D2C:D0EA:3CA6:66E9 (talk) 17:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

That very issue should be discussed in the article - that various agencies have different criteria, giving examples of different criteria, perhaps noting why FUB naming conventions stand out as different. (What sources I want is not a relevant consideration because I am just one person, not a WP:RS.) If there is no widely accepted definition of a windstorm, that should be explained in the article, along with criteria for inclusion of a storm in this WP article. This is a critical item that's missing from this article. Some storms are included here while others aren't. Readers need to know what this article is about - what constitutes a windstorm for purposes of this article. Without stating that scope, this article is about nothing in particular other than storms that editors think should be included. That is not encyclopedic. Dcs002 (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

There is no global definition of storms, every agency has separate criteria. So what exactly defines a storm will remain a mystery 2A02:A44C:6682:1:149E:AAC1:B4C2:5477 (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Whatever the agencies want, I guess. I don't think we have much of a choice in not including some as I feel like that would violate stuff. ✶Mitch199811✶ 02:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Criteria windstorm

I would say, a windstorm has at least gusts of more than 100 km/h (28 m/s), anything less than that is at best just turbulent weather. And storms usually have a highest hourly average windspeed of 80 km/h (22 m/s), and a 24-hour average of 60 km/h (17 m/s). 2A02:A44C:6682:1:D5DA:8997:CB52:6714 (talk) 08:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

What you would say isn't usable in WP articles. What do reliable sources say? That is how we build a quality encyclopedia.

Also, please don't start new sections to comment on a topic when there is already an ongoing discussion on that topic in another section. Thanks! Dcs002 (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Good afternoon madam/sir,

I indeed think this is valid criteria, but there will have to come an agreement on this criteria with other editors. Egghead2000 (talk) 12:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

We don't need a consensus to write an article. We need reliable sources. What we think isn't enough. We need to write about what we find in reliable sources. If a disagreement arises, we might need to request a discussion for a consensus, but first we need to actually write the article. There has been no disagreement on this subject because it is not discussed in the article, nor has anyone cited a reliable source that defines a windstorm. We need to start there. There is already an ongoing discussion on this topic above on this page. Dcs002 (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't matter how "valid" the ideas we come up are, they have to be backed up with reliable sources. ✶Mitch199811✶ 17:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

The DMI & KNMI are good sources, they have a criteria for Storms. Both say storms are: • 24-hour average windspeed: >10 m/s • Highest hourly average windspeed: >17 m/s • Highest gust: >25 m/s

Oooorrrr… we could do METLUX criteria, >10, >16, >24 m/s.

MetOffice has criteria for different region, one for England, Scotland, Wales & N-I respectively. So that is not very valid 2A02:A44C:6682:1:149E:AAC1:B4C2:5477 (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Dcs002: Based on my reading of these various sources. My understanding is that the term European Windstorm is a term that is used in reliable sources, to group the various types of depressions & extratropical cyclones that cause severe weather in Europe together. As a result, I believe that there is no single set definition of what qualifies as a windstorm and as you correctly point out nor should we attempt to define one. Over the years, editors have attempted to replicate the various tropical cyclone season pages, with the names coming from the six naming schemes that are used by the various met agencies in Europe for severe weather. For various reasons though there has not been much success in developing the articles properly.Jason Rees (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Use the word “Unspecified”

When I checked this articles edit history, I saw that many editors use the word “unknown”. Instead of “unspecified”. I think that’s a problem, because the word “unknown” sounds quite immature. On Wikipedia we must use more mature and professional words, for instance: “unspecified”. If I see the word “unknown” again, then I’m going to replace it with “unspecified”. 2A02:A44C:6682:1:20EC:C052:862A:4CFE (talk) 08:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

At least in the Atlantic hurricane seasons and Typhoon Tip, I see unknown more than unspecified (in fact I have never seen unspecified in over the 2 years I've edited). ✶Mitch199811✶ 12:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I just looked for a Wikipedia guideline covering this and it seems that unknown is preferred; however, I could not find any exact guideline just wp:unknown. It might be a relevant policy if we can find someone who knows the prices but not for wording. ✶Mitch199811✶ 13:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mitch199811 (talk · contribs) I don’t understand what you mean Your talking about prices in your last sentence, but prices have nothing to do with storms. Or the price of the total storm damage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A44C:6682:1:20EC:C052:862A:4CFE (talk • contribs)

I was referring to storm damages, I guess windspeed can also be "unknown." The Australian Tropical Cyclone Season Articles use "Not Specified" in that scenerio. ✶Mitch199811✶ 17:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

There is a subtle difference in meaning. "Not specified" refers to the lack of action taken (specification). It is a negated past-tense verb. Unspecified is an adjective that describes the object or quantity being discussed as being without specification. Where is the focus, on the lack of action or on the item being described? I think a larger issue is an editor's idea of what constitutes immature writing, and their opinion that such a subjective judgement should form the basis for article edits. Numerous comments have been made on this talk page that do little more than harshly judge the writing skills of others without any basis for the comments, and the tone of some of these comments is almost comical. (The most egregious have been reverted.) I think we should carefully consider the merits of engaging in such discussions. Dcs002 (talk) 04:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Overall, I want him to even explain how "unknown" is immature ✶Mitch199811✶ 18:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mitch199811 (talk · contribs) I think “not specified” sounds sloppy, it’s better to use “unspecified” instead. If it’s split in to two “not & specified” that can be quite distressing to readers. The word “unknown” is viewed as unprofessional by readers. So the best is to use “unspecified”.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A44C:6682:1:20EC:C052:862A:4CFE (talk • contribs)

If you want to change it, I would go up to the Wikiproject (in this case Weather) as now you are starting to influence a larger group of articles. Also please sign your comments with ~~~~. ✶Mitch199811✶ 02:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Dcs002 (talk · contribs) & @Mitch199811 (talk · contribs) Why is it so difficult for you all to understand?! And I don’t know what on earth you all are saying about me being “comical”, “egregious” probably just because you’re rude. I suggest you two just forget about it… I’m exhausted 2A02:A44C:6682:1:6068:A2F8:2224:118 (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I just want to know what you mean by mature as nothing in Wikipedia's policies that I have found say unknown is banned or depreciated. ✶Mitch199811✶ 01:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mitch199811 (talk · contribs) As a matter of fact, if you want to be a Wikipedia editor, you have to be near perfect. But many editors here are too imperfect, and the sad thing is, they believe they are perfect. I think nobody should lie about their credibility, especially when they use immature grammar. 2A02:A44C:6682:1:2D2C:D0EA:3CA6:66E9 (talk) 08:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

1. In all of my experience, I have only seen 1 person get blocked for making a mistake. Even in that scenario, he was making false articles and being rude to admins.

2. You have still yet to say why unknown is wrong other than being "immature," but you do not explain how or why it is; and even if we all agreed here, I feel that you need the wikiproject to agree because of the scope (example 1, example 2) of what you are changing. ✶Mitch199811✶ 13:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The topic of this section is the subject of an ongoing [dispute resolution discussion]. Please do not delete it, as it is important for the parties to the dispute to have access to the discussion. Dcs002 (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Please stop deleting comments you don't like! You are abusing this talk page when you do that. Dcs002 (talk) 04:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@Dcs002 (talk · contribs) & @Mitch199811 (talk · contribs) What are you two actually whining about? I haven’t seen anyone write about deleting comments or being rude to admins. Or were does deleted? Because I don’t see them. 2A02:A44C:6682:1:1CD0:C1BA:E84F:D004 (talk) 12:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

[1] You deleted this whole convo because "we were in agreement" while there was a dispute resolution discussion being talked about and I had clearly not agreed. Judging by wp:rfa, 70% seems to be the minimum for consensus otherwise it stays the same.

[2] This one you straight up deleted only DCS's comment saying that it was harassment and you didn't understand the word "comical." ✶Mitch199811✶ 13:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@Mitch199811 (talk · contribs) I don’t know what your talking about, I never “agreed” to anything. So “I” didn’t do anything. I share this IP with 2 others, so the problem is beyond me 2A02:A44C:6682:1:1CD0:C1BA:E84F:D004 (talk) 13:34, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

If you are another editor, could you pass on the information to who might be doing this. I would also make an account to avoid more wrongly directed accusations. ✶Mitch199811✶ 17:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Maybe “undetermined”?

Along with “unspecified”, maybe “undetermined” can be used too. Just don’t write woke information, it’s unprofessional. Also, the tables used are a bit unclear, and have a bad design. Is there a way to make them more clearer? For instance; color codes , like the wind gusts in a medical light blue color, or a yellowish color or greenish color. Just don’t use immature colors like baby pink or baby blue, or an unclear color like orange and red. Because mostly color of the letters in black, or add a black background. What I think would be the best idea, is if there is a dark theme for Wikipedia. 2A02:A44C:6682:1:6068:A2F8:2224:118 (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Once again, I would suggest consulting wikipedia:weather. I do not think we can do what you are asking. ✶Mitch199811✶ 12:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Please define woke information, and explain how that fits with any WP policy. Also please specify what constitutes the maturity of a color and how that justifies its use. If certain colors are less suitable, that is a discussion that belongs elsewhere, as it affects all articles, not just this one. And again, please discuss things in the sections where the discussions are already ongoing, and consider participating in the dispute resolution. Dcs002 (talk) 04:59, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@Dcs002 (talk · contribs) With woke information I mean information that’s politically or religiously influenced. Some people believe that storms are created by meteorological institutes. Or are caused by vengeful spirits. (I’ve seen some of that on other articles btw) And I don’t want that type of bogus claims to effect this article. With colors I of course talk about, you know… A 5 year old girl wants baby pink socks. A 15 year old girl wants hot pink socks. A 25 year old woman wants purple socks. As people get older, they tend to prefer darker colors as they get older. A child likes bright colors: Yellow, light blue, etc… But as they get to their teenage years, about 12 years old, they prefer darker colors: Dark blue, black, etc… And most men prefer masculine colors: Black, grey, dark green, dark blue, etc. With females, for instance little girls, they like bright pink. But as they get older, and enter their teens, about 12 years old. They prefer more mature colors: purple, blue, red, etc… It’s basically just common sense when you think of it

What is “dispute resolution” exactly? 2A02:A44C:6682:1:149E:AAC1:B4C2:5477 (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Your definition of woke is incorrect. It was originally coined in African American Vernacular English to mean awake, in the sense of being alert to, or aware of the full impact of racial injustice. It has since broadened to mean "aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)," per Merriam Webster. It has nothing to do with edits in this article. It is an oft abused excuse for dismissing the opinions of people we disagree with. We need to stick with facts, neutral language, and reliable sources. If you dispute an edit, be specific. Loaded words don't add meaning, only subjective rhetoric and often culturally specific bias.

Your idea that colors are related to maturity might be specific to your culture, but they do not apply to other cultures. Until the early 20th century, pink was a color that represented boys, not girls, in the UK and the USA. Your ideas about what colors mean do not generalize to the rest of the world, and this encyclopedia is meant to serve the rest of the world, not your own sense of what things mean. And your gender-specific categorization is simply inflammatory. People do not, and should not, conform to your gender expectations.

You missed the dispute resolution. It has been closed. You chose not to participate after multiple invitations on this page and on your user talk page. Your choice not to participate in that forum (which is voluntary) means that further disruptive editing on your part will have to be dealt with at the next higher level. I don't know what that next level is, and I'd rather not find out, but I don't think participation will be voluntary. Our complaints concerning your editing are on the record, along with your choice not to participate. You have a decision to make. You can stop making edits based on your personal opinions and preferences and learn and follow the guidelines and policies established for editing on WP, or we can find out together what exactly that next step is. I think you've already violated enough WP policies and guidelines just on this talk page to warrant sanctions, and WP has a complete record of every one of those violations. WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:OWN and WP:PA are the first few that spring to mind. If you don't believe you've been doing anything wrong, you really should look over those pages. Some of the sanctions are severe, including blocks and bans.

I KNOW that not all disruptive editing is intentional. Some people just don't know how WP works, or what is expected of editors, or maybe there are language problems, but you've had numerous warnings that there is a problem, and you chose not to participate in the first voluntary dispute resolution process. People have actually been trying to help you, but you've responded with attacks and hostility. I really hope you take this opportunity to learn how WP works, and learn to work within the standards of the worldwide community of Wikipedians. We've got a great thing going here, and I hope you'll participate in making it even better. Dcs002 (talk) 12:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@Dcs002 (talk · contribs) Unfortunately I have no clue what your talking about here. And what do you mean with sanctions or blocks on Wikipedia? I haven’t got sanctioned before, nor blocked. And if it would happen, that will be authoritarian. I indeed notice a big culture difference! Here in Europe we’re way different then British and Americans. Us Western Europeans have more logic, and we never saw pink as a man color. If it’s true that pink is meant for men in Britain & America, then I think that's very disturbing and weird. And about “learning how Wikipedia works”… I know how it works, but I don’t know what to do with all these links that you all send me, I’ve never got any “invitation” for anything, and what does “dispute resolution” even mean? And I want to know which “personal attacks” and “hostility” your talking about, because I haven’t done any of that, in fact, I’m the victim of those things. 2A02:A44C:6682:1:1CD0:C1BA:E84F:D004 (talk) 13:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

And which complaint? And I didn’t do anything “voluntary”, but nobody is going to force me to do anything! 2A02:A44C:6682:1:1CD0:C1BA:E84F:D004 (talk) 13:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Write: Türkiye

Just incase there are persons who don’t know this yet, we don’t say the country “Turkey” anymore, it’s “Türkiye”. This was requested by Mr. Erdogan (President of Türkiye) and the Turkish people. “Turkey” is seen as an insult, because turkey is a bird & meat. So remember to always write Türkiye!! (To show respect)

2A02:A44C:6682:1:5CEB:D39D:AFCD:D30B (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Most people in the English language still use Turkey (just look at the title of the Wikipedia page) and within Wikipedia Turkey seems to be preferred. So I would not change anything especially to keep consistency (also so I don't have to write diacritics). ✶Mitch199811✶ 22:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

It is not an insult. Their complaint was that it sounded too much like the English word for the bird.

This sort of dispute has been resolved in the past by deferring to the reliable sources of the information. What is right isn't always what matters. What do the RS say? We are not here to right great wrongs. Some say this name change is a political ploy; others (like me), believe in the right of a people to determine their own identity, but the word, as it appears in RS, is what rules.

I don't see how we can consistently use characters that do not exist in the English language on the English language WP. My opinion is in keeping with previous WP consensus - that we should defer to the spelling and identity in the RS, or else start a discussion on Words to Watch because again, this convention affects all WP pages, not just this one.

What is our convention for the Czech Republic? They changed their name in English to Czechia a few years ago, but few seem to have noticed. Dcs002 (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mitch199811 (talk · contribs) What do you mean with “diacritics”?

I’m actually surprised that Wikipedia still uses “Turkey”, because 99% of news channels & websites call it “Türkiye” now. Because it was requested by Mr. Erdogan, the President of Türkiye, and the Turkish population.

Also I was thinking of maybe making a table/ infobox for the highest wind gust of every storm. 2A02:A44C:6682:1:5CEB:D39D:AFCD:D30B (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

My (and most American keyboards) don't have too good of access to special characters like the ü.

Outside of people saying that Turkey renamed, I don't think I have ever heard Türkiye (google even marks it wrong).

If you can find that information then wp:bold. ✶Mitch199811✶ 00:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mitch199811 (talk · contribs) I see, well my keyboard can do 11 different languages, the European ones do much more than the American ones. After all, bilingual people need multiple languages keyboards. 2A02:A44C:6682:1:3D64:C40D:68C4:5D05 (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@Dcs002 (talk · contribs) Czechia & Türkiye are used in news channels. But I guess they haven’t been completely verified yet. Because according to the Oxford University Dictionary & Cambridge University Dictionary, it’s still Czech Republic and Turkey. Of course countries like “North-Macedonia” & “Republic of Ireland” or “The People’s Republic of China” are now named “Macedonia, Ireland & China”. And I support that, because I think they should leave out the whole “republic & north” thing. With the Czech Republic, i hope they verify it soon in the dictionary, because Czechia is easier to write. Türkiye was only requested by the Turkish President & people. So I wasn’t sure if it had to be changed or not, after all, you never know anything 100% anymore nowadays. 2A02:A44C:6682:1:41D9:C9CB:C73:4E94 (talk) 23:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

It was more than requested by the Turkish president. In the summer (June?) of 2022, Türkiye became the officially recognized name by the United Nations. About 2 weeks ago, after resisting the change for many months, the US State Department also adopted Türkiye in all of its official correspondence. It's a valid point right now, but I think it needs to be discussed elsewhere, maybe WP:W2W? (I'm not sure if that is the forum that decides accepted place names in WP, but it's a system-wide issue, and we should have consistency across WP pages.) I think also that the OED does have a legitimate role in describing common usage outside such diplomatic circles, and I'm glad you brought them up.

I think it's important to keep in mind that usage (not rules) determines meaning. Grammarians and pedants can only follow current usage patterns, making attempts to describe usage as a coherent system. (Paraphrasing Thomas Parkhurst.) In general, rules of spelling, grammar, and usage are descriptive, not prescriptive, so we always have some freedom to write in a way that is best understood. That has been the consensus among linguists for many decades now. Effective conveyance of meaning is the purpose of language. If we have achieved that, we have done well. Dcs002 (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Dcs002 (talk · contribs) I think it was June 16, but I’m not 100% sure. But it was June 2022. 2A02:A44C:6682:1:149E:AAC1:B4C2:5477 (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Lack of sources

Unfortunately there is a lot of unsourced information in this article. Everywhere where it says “[citation needed]”, I want to see a source. And don’t add an invalid source like a .onion or a random tweet. It needs a valid source from a trustworthy news website or meteorological institute. If I see that the source is invalid, I will remove it! 2A02:A44C:6682:1:1CD0:C1BA:E84F:D004 (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Heads up for vandalism!

On 29 January 2023 at 17:27, user EuropeanXTwisters (talk · contribs) was partaking in vandalism, when he or she removed “Unspecified” and replaced with “unknown” under the “Storms” section at “Ex-Hurricane Danielle”.

He or she wrote this in his or her edit summary: “Changing "Unspecified" back to unknown!“

This is vandalism, and therefore I’m warning other editors to look out for the username: EuropeanXTwisters (talk · contribs) 2A02:A44C:6682:1:1CD0:C1BA:E84F:D004 (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

It isn't vandalism but a good faith edit and personally I think Unknown works better than unspecified for deaths/damages since they are not known. I also feel the need to remind you that this talkpage isn't a forum to talk about your personal whims, but instead a page to talk about how to develop the article.Jason Rees (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@Jason Rees (talk · contribs) This message is ment to develop the article, because if I warn people about vandalism then they know to keep eye on it. It’s nothing personal either, but the tone EuropeanXTwisters (talk · contribs) used in his or her edit summary is condescending. I’m simply helping reduce vandalism! And “unknown” just doesn’t sound mature enough. It’s better to use posh adult words, like “unspecified”, unspecified sounds more mature and professional, and THAT is what adults want. 2A02:A44C:6682:1:1CD0:C1BA:E84F:D004 (talk) 22:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)