Jump to content

Talk:Hurricane Bawbag

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 212.183.128.20 (talk) at 00:37, 9 December 2011 (→‎Edit request on 9 December 2011: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Contested deletion

  • whilst the event is still ongoing, there is no justification for removing it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saariselka1 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because... it's happening right now in Scotland, is on our national news and is a top trend on twitter. Type it into Google wikiguys it's there and the merchandise is real.
  • This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, as there is a large storm in Scotland and this reference has become culturally central to it. It is standard to create pages to refer to serious weather events, which this is: the title is currently the most popular term used for this one. The page requires revision rather than deletion.
  • This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because this is a current event that is trending on Twitter. It is causing widespread disruption across Scotland. Schools and universities have been closed, trains cancelled, etc.
  • This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because... (its true, search google) --92.26.100.105 (talk) 13:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because... this is a topic that has been had a lot of exposure on social media websites lately and I'd like to know more about it. Deleting the page will not encourage anyone who knows aout the event to share their knowledge about it...
  • This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because... (your reason here) --2.24.167.102 (talk) 13:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you were to google "hurricane bawbag" you'll see that it's completely true.
  • This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because.the article is accurate as the people of Scotland gave this storm the name Hurricane Bawbag) --87.112.44.68 (talk) 13:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because... it is a very windy day in Scotland and we ARE calling it hurricane Bawbag, so its true, not a hoax and should stay
  • This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because... it is accurate and correct.
  • This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because it happened. I was there.
  • This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because... (all you need to do is google the term and you will see that it is trending massively online. News groups have also started using the term 'hurricane bawbag') --118.44.246.82 (talk) 13:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because... (your reason here) --90.196.54.66 (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC) It depicts an actual even which received considerable media coverage and has trended in the world wide top ten on twitter[reply]
  • This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because... (your reason here) --193.60.168.65 (talk) 14:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a word of a lie in the statement. There was/is stormy weather in Scotland and it has been dubbed "hurricane bawbag" by millions of people. Just because the term is seen as rude doesn't mean this is a hoax, the reason so many people refer to the weather as hurricane bawbag is because of the comical value of the name and the way it contrasts to traditional American named hurricanes. This is an important topic as it highlights the humour and light heartedness of Scottish people who are taking a serious issue and dismissing it as a joke. Examples of this has been seen throughout British history. Do not delete this just because the term can be seen as rude. It is all fact!

Note

regarding the 'not news' tag now, we have articles on 'Hurricanes', floods, snow etc. After today when the damage is done with figures released the article could be worth saving. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 14:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name

Officially, the storm is not a hurricane... and is not named Bawbag. The system was named Friedhelm by the FU-Berlin, the official namers for European windstorms. ----Bruvtakesover (talk!) 14:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article could be moved to something like '2011 United Kingdom windstorm'? Not too sure on the though. But it seems Hurricane Bawbag may become a type of WP:COMMONNAME. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 14:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But there is no point in moving it if it is proposed for deletion. ----Bruvtakesover (talk!) 14:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Yeah it's not the official name, but it has VERY quickly become the unofficial name all across Scotland, since this is a pretty rare occurrence here, it is very much a topical point. Might be worth adding a link to the official page of "Friedhelm weather system" or whatever is there is such a page if people want to be clear about it, or make a note on the page that that's its official name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.14.13.229 (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've created the redirects, Windstorm Friedhelm and Cyclone Friedhelm, for simplicity. ----Bruvtakesover (talk!) 16:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not re-propose deletion

Per WP:DEPROD, once a proposed deletion has been contested the next step is AfD. Do not re-add the prod tag. Quite honestly I think taking a current news item to AfD is a waste of time due to the number of well-meaning editors who will turn up contesting it; leaving this for a few days until a more objective appraisal of the event can be taken is probably sensible. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wind speeds

Per edit, agx please stop reverting sourced factual edits with inaccurate ones. I provided the source stating wind speeds have reached 151mph, read the reference before you change it. almightybob (pray) 15:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's becoming difficult to add new things to the article when others are also doing this, such as that edit when the diff I was editing was the most recent. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 15:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah OK, no problem then :) almightybob (pray) 15:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BBC source now states 165mph, trying to update to this new highest speed but people keep reverting me :P almightybob (pray) 15:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Would IPs STOP vandalizing the page. Thank you. ----Bruvtakesover (talk!) 15:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just semi'd it [stwalkerster|talk] 15:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You make a page called 'hurricane bawbag' and you're surprised it's getting 'vandalised'? Having looked at some of the reverted edits, I think the vandals have a better idea how a web page with a title like this ought to read. Some of you should take yourselves a little less seriously and if you must write about bawbags go and do it on Urban Dictionary or somewhere similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.12.21 (talk) 16:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A photo gallery has been published on the Real Radio website which shows some of the storms destruction.

Kbarlee (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, all of those are copyrighted, so we can't make use of them here. If you have any freely licensed images, please upload them to Wikimedia Commons and they can then be used here. Mike Peel (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 8 December 2011

The sentence 'Rangers FC are still Bawbags' is a) irrelevant b) racist c) liable to cause offense and violence.

90.196.136.235 (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Already gone [stwalkerster|talk] 15:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Racist against which race? Rangers? :) -taras (talk) 16:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't this Celtic FC earlier? Seriously, this isn't a football game. Keep this garbage off of here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.234.194 (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request - 8th December 2011

Please take out, "Resident from Ayr, named Ellie Tait was very prepared for the hurricane as she wore her very warm jacket", as it is irrelevant and considered silly.

EDIT:: Nevermind. Seems to be gone now. (Theophilagapeton (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Done!Vrenator talk 16
02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, quick note re: the photos of Union Street -- it's mentioned twice, and only needs to be once. :) Thanks! (Theophilagapeton (talk) 16:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Notible as cultural phenomenon

Now explicitely mentioned by two WP:RSs, [[Scottish Television] ([1]) and Huffington Post ([2]). Definitely WP:N, no justification for speedy or title change.FrFintonStack (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no speedy or title change tags on the article... almightybob (pray) 16:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's just saying that as a precaution for later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.234.194 (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 8 December 2011

Can you please add the fact that many Bunnets have been lost during this weather rampage? BW5991 (talk) 16:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. almightybob (pray) 16:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 8 December 2011

instead of bawbag being named vulgar Scottish expression the word vulgar should be removed as it is not vulgar its just different dialect

139.133.7.237 (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's not vulgar for 'ballbag' - 'ballbag' itself is vulgar, 'bawbag' is just the dialect MkeCr (talk) 16:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that while it derives from a vulgar term it isn't wholly vulgar per this usage; just Scots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sera21 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure what the problem is - are you saying the word "vulgar" should not be applied? Because it is an accurate description of the term bawbag. I agree the sentence could use tidying up though - I'm not sure the clarification of "ballbag" is necessary, if that is removed it will probably flow better. almightybob (pray) 17:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Declined; no consensus that the present wording is inaccurate or misleading. The expression is both Scottish and vulgar, independently as well as combined, and as such "vulgar Scottish" seems fine. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"vulgar" is not too contentious, but the term "Scottish vernacular" is. It would be more accurate to describe it as a Scots word that is used in various dialects (of both Scots and English and everything between, see the description of the linguistic continuum in Scotland on the Scots language page). Probably a clearer and less contentious phrasing would be "... based on the Scots word bawbag." Junglehungry (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 8 December 2011

Official Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/HurricaneBawbag2011 95.145.157.132 (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. This isn't an "official" page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so what should this article *really* be called?

Yes, we've all laughed at the name, but it's not very encyclopaedic. Does anyone have any suggestions for a more appropriate title for this article? The official name of the storm is apparently 'Friedhelm', but that's not very recognisable. Besides, looking at Category:European windstorms, not all of them are titled by their official names, some are titled by the year and place instead. 2011 Scottish windstorm, then? Or should we just wait and see what the media call it? I guess it's probably too early to say what the common name of this event will be, but somehow I doubt 'Hurricane Bawbag' will make the history books. Robofish (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're discussing on IRC. ----Bruvtakesover (talk!) 17:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IRC discussions are worthless; if it didn't happen on-wiki, it didn't happen as regards article content. As far as the subject matter goes, the simple fact is that the current title is easily the common name for the subject at this time, and Bowdlerising it certainly does not reduce the absurdity level. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's being used in news media, including the BBC Radio 4 PM program and local newsAidanskinner (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While Hurricane Bawbag may be the most common name, i think it would be better that we use something like December 2011 British isles windstorm especially since we are not being affected by a hurricane and will cause confusion.Jason Rees (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support December 2011 British windstorm as a temporary name, at least in preference to the current one. Robofish (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. The potential for confusion here due to the terminology used is comparable to that of Hurricane Higgins. "Not accurate" is significantly further down the list of naming criteria than "most common" is. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Hurricane Bawbag → Friedhelm (European windstorm) – This present name, while perhaps suitable as a redirect to the official name, does not serve as a very encyclopedic name for the article per the part of this section above. The windstorm's official name is Friedhelm and we would do best to have the article titled as such, but given the laundry list of Friedhelm articles on Wikipedia I think it would be best to disambiguate the title. I'm open to other suggestions for better phrasings of the title (perhaps "Windstorm Friedhelm" or something of the sort), but either way I think the article should be titled based on the official name. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 19:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither "not very encyclopedic" nor "we would be best to" are arguments based on our guidelines for page titles. "Official" is, but it's assigned significantly less weight than WP:COMMONNAME and there can be no argument whatsoever as to the present common name for this subject. This and other page move suggestions are well-meaning but misguided attempts at Bowdlerisation due to the perceived vulgar nature of the common name. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Friedhelm doesn't seem to be getting as much mention in the media, so I would prefer bawbags on WP:COMMONNAME grounds. In what way is bawbags unencyclopædic? bobrayner (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just had a look at COMMONNAME for the first time in quite a while and I see that it says, in part, "Article titles should be neither vulgar nor pedantic". I think that given that this storm's common name is a vulgar term that in itself is enough reason to defer to the official name. I think the function of COMMONNAME can be served just as effectively in this situation by a redirect as it can by being the actual article title. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 20:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Should be" is not "must be". Furthermore, it is readily arguable that a large part of this subject's notability is because of the "only in Scotland" angle which led to its trending on Twitter, which is by necessity predicated on the vulgarity of the name. That redirection would get people to the same article is neither here nor there, as our naming guidelines most certainly do not suggest that articles with vulgar common names be moved to neutered titles as a matter of course. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sigh...I don't know. I'll defer to whatever consensus says, I just think it's a sad day when Wikipedia chooses what is essentially "Hurricane Scrotum" for an article title when the event was neither a hurricane nor related to a scrotum, all because it's a name for the event that got popularized on a social networking site. While it may meet COMMONNAME, I feel that it does so at a cost to dignity that isn't well anticipated by COMMONNAME. I can think of numerous reasons to not keep this article at its current name that while they may not be policy based certainly appeal to my common sense. If y'all want an article titled "Hurricane Scrotum" there's obviously nothing I can do to prevent it on my own, but both the meteorologist and Wikipedian in me make me want to shake my head in shame at such a choice. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 21:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think that as a meteorologist you may be misinterpreting the subject of the article a little. This article is as much about the Twitter instance as the actual weather event, or at least should be if there is a reasonable claim to it being a notable subject. In time it may evolve one way or the other, and may be retitled or even merged or deleted. However, for the time being, it is absurd to try to "claim" an article which exists solely due to the Twitter coverage as a notable meteorological event to the extent of jettisoning the title which is its primary claim to notability. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I just think it's funny how the people citing WP:COMMONNAME find an excuse to ignore parts of that same policy to their convenience. Auree ★ 21:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • I've specifically addressed the arguments made regarding the caveats of COMMONNAME. If that is "finding an excuse" to "ignore" said caveats in your book then it must be great living in your world where there is a predetermined right and wrong answer to any dispute that is obvious from reading the guidelines. Sigh. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • If you think it's notable because of the "Hurricane Bawbag" name, think of it not as Hurricane Bawbag being notable because of that, think of it as Friedhelm is notable because of it and go off of that. Also, if you have to, think of it as a WP:IAR situation (and that's something I invoke extremely rarely). So Hurricane Bawbag is the COMMONNAME...but is that really a title we want to use given that there is another equally acceptable (if not more so) name we can use? Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 21:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Also, the storm has been listed on the page [List_of_European_windstorms] as Friedhelm, without challenge since 15:00 GMT 08/12/11, which, while not long (22:00 presently), might suggest that editors more familiar with the pages surrounding these phenomena find the Friedhelm name more applicable. I also suspect that the name "hurricane bawbag" is less likely to be the common name of the storm as it moves to the east, possibly affecting Scandinavia. Certainly a re-direct from "hurricane bawbag" is required. Looking at previous naming systems of European windstorms, the German names are generally favoured (they name all lows) however storms which predominantly affect Scandinavia have been given Norwegian names, and the occasional storm given a descriptive name. Bawbag is neither descriptive, nor given by any recognised naming system, and I'd think does not fit with the naming scheme in place already. Also given that the name ultimately derives from Twitter (I don't believe it is regarded as a valid source for wikipedia) I think bawbags deserves to be a mere redirect. Lacunae (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick input: I'd prefer it to be Friedhelm (Hurricane) with a disambiguation. Ginister (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at WP:TITLE then. It lists five things the article title should be.

  • 1. Recognisable - "Hurricane Bawbag" is now a widely recognised, albeit unofficial, name for Friedhelm. Certainly far more recognisable than the official name.
  • 2. Natural - again, people are far more likely to be searching for Hurricane Bawbag than Friedhelm, due to the prevalence of the former name in the media.
  • 3. Precise - "Hurricane Bawbag" refers to this and only this. "Friedhelm" would require disambiguation, or elaboration such as "Friedhelm (storm)".
  • 4. Concise - Both are pretty concise.
  • 5. Consistent - it's not technically a hurricane, but the naming format of similar weather events widely follows the "Hurricane X" format.

I'd say based on the current sources and WP:AT, the title should remain as is for now. Lacunae, put your crystal ball away :) what happens once it hits Scandinavia is unknowable at present. All we can do now is report what the RSs are reporting, and several have referred to it by Hurricane Bawbag (when they refer to it by name at all). I've yet to see any media calling it Friedhelm. almightybob (pray) 22:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be named "Hurricane Bawbag" because, having been referred to under that name, or having the name discussed, on the STV website, Huffington Post and now BBC Radio (http://chirb.it/8ahIkr), it clearly received significant coverage in several reliable sources that are verifiable, so is thus notable as a social phenomenon. Even if a consensus is arrived at that that another name for the storm is more appropriate, it would be incumbent on the editors to create a page for that, rather than rename an existing page for a legitimate subject.FrFintonStack (talk) 23:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 8 December 2011

Bawbag,glasgow slang for a term of endearment.look up glasgow slang words

92.3.173.134 (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. In the Scottish vernacular many disparaging terms can be used affectionately, but there is nothing specific in that regard when it comes to either the word or the usage here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request - date possibly incorrect?

Article reads 'midnight on 8th december' when in fact I think that it is a date in the future. Should it not be 'midnight of 7th December'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.144.151.228 (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Nope. As soon as it becomes 12 am (midnight) its the next day. It is midnight of December 8th — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.191.241.140 (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second IP is correct - imagine a 24-hour clock. Midnight, 0:00, is the beginning of the day. Although colloquially you would be understood to mean tonight rather than last night if you said "meet me at midnight on the 8th December", it's not technically correct. almightybob (pray) 18:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 8 December 2011

please mention the fact that wheelie bins were over taken me on the motorway 92.26.100.105 (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, hardly notable, and you are not a reliable source--Jac16888 Talk 19:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 8 December 2011

You're missing a key definition of the term 'bawbag'. It's used to mean a stupid, glaikit, foolish or generally annoying person (or thing) in this case. The definition adds texture to the original joke. Urban dictionary in agreement. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bawbag Sera21 (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done I'm sorry, but really any of the definitions of the term are irrelevant to the article. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 19:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh My God Trampoline

Worth mentioning the Oh my god trampoline?

Many major news websites reported the viral video, as it trended on twitter. original video at http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=214702938604320

Copies are on youtube etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.49.111 (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 9 December 2011

Please mention ferries in the transport page!! 212.183.128.20 (talk) 00:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Bawbag&oldid=464868617"