Talk:2017–18 European windstorm season

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Picture of Storm Aileen for infobox[edit]

I am looking to find an aerial image of Storm Aileen during the 12-13 September as the image I uploaded may not fit the license hence I removed it from the infobox.

I am looking to find an aerial image to replace the image that I put on but haven't found anything. I was wanting to see if anyone was able to find an image of Storm Aileen that doesn't violate any copyright issues.

It would be appreciative!

HectorBrockerbank (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I've put a gif of the storm up, at some point (if you want and if I remember/have time) I'll try and give you some tips on where to look for images, though a look through might give you some hints/tips.Lacunae (talk) 23:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Lacunae! You've been helpful. It's alright, don't need tips! Appreciate your help though. Thank you! HectorBrockerbank (talk) 09:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC) HectorBrockerbank (talk) 09:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Storm Ophelia or Ex-Hurricane Ophelia?[edit]

I've only seen Storm Ophelia on major news outlets from Europe, and none of them say Ex-Hurricane Opehlia. Someone please explain this with references that officially state that it was called Ex-Hurricane Ophelia. HurricaneGonzalo | Talk | Contribs 19:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Something of an opinion piece from a US-based meteorological journo, but he does make the this observation:"Some media outlets in Britain referred to the system as Storm Ophelia, adopting their standard winter-storm-naming paradigm. The government weather services generally called it Ex-Hurricane Ophelia, which elevated the threat above a typical winter storm"[1]

The Met Office use Ex-Hurricane Ophelia while Met Eireann seem to have used both Storm Ophelia and Ex-hurricane Ophelia

Personally I think for the purposes of this page using storm before the name is redundant, and has not been used for instance with Aileen. I think Ex-hurricane does immediately inform the reader that this storm was an ex-hurricane.Lacunae (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Norcross, Bryan. "If it quacks like a hurricane: Time to rethink 'post-tropical cyclone' terminology". Washington Post. Retrieved 18 October 2017.

Season summary table thing[edit]

I still fail to see the point in including a seasonal summary table with the coloured wind speed doodads. As the criteria for naming generally are going to always mean that the wind speeds are in the range of ≥73 mph. The only way I could see it having merit is in highly clustered periods such as 2013-14 or 1990, and then perhaps not more so than text.Lacunae (talk) 22:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I like the table as it shows the spacing and length of the storms (2015–16 looks good). I agree that the colours seem a bit pointless when almost all of the storms are ≥73 mph. Does anyone know why that is the top category? When some of the storms register ≥100 mph, it would make sense for the categories to continue. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 14:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
In regards to the duration of the storms, I think a graphic designed for Hurricanes (tropical storms) is not particularly applicable. Tropical storms can have extreme durations into weeks, these storms very rarely last more than say 24 hours in their most impactful phase, better indices of severity might be along the lines of sting jet or explosive deepening.Lacunae (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

For me it doesn't seem to make sense having that storm strength scale as is. Per definition only storms with amber or red warnings get named, per scope of the article only such storms get included and those are storms with higher wind speeds as are indicated through the light green and yellow colors. The only situation I can imagine in which lower wind speeds are appearant would be systems which get amber or red warnings for other reasons than for wind warnings, e.g. for ice (sleet). --Matthiasb (talk) 17:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

It seems that people would like the timeline image to stay but we have to find a different format for it. So my question would be is there a different parameter we can judge the storms against? I also wonder @Lacunae: if it’s time for a review of how these articles work after all it’s been 3 years now and I do wonder if we shouldn’t be including some of the other named systems in greater detail.Jason Rees (talk) 01:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, a review might be a good idea @Jason Rees:, could you clarify what you mean by "including some of the other named storms in greater detail" though.Lacunae (talk) 18:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I was thinking about Berlin Norway etc and having more than just the table below - not sure how you would achieve it though.Jason Rees (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I did try before, I think it was storm Barney to add relevant information from Germany which was swiftly removed by other editors. I think in my experience as soon as you name an article UK and Ireland anything, it is very difficult to include outside information as it is seen as not within the article remit. I think you'd need to rework the articles as something like 2017–18 European windstorm season. Which I think would be more Wikipedian, but whether it would work or attract editors, I don't know. I'd be glad to hear any suggestions you might have on the matter.Lacunae (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
The chart currently uses the Beaufort scale. Could we make up our own? Perhaps in decades, such as 70-79 mph, 80-89 etc? Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 12:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Using the Beaufort scale is a good thing. Making an own scale would be OR. --Matthiasb (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Would it? It would just be colours for the graph/chart/table thingy. We wouldn't be presenting it as an official scale as such, just a key for different colours showing wind speed on the thingy. Having used the Beaufort scale, there has only been two colours used (and the second colours was used once). Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 20:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Pressure and wind speeds[edit]

Is it supposed to include the most extreme values of the storm during its existence even if it was offshore, or do we include only on shore observed values? Also, is the Brian pressure a measured value somewhere or was originated in a weather map? --Matthiasb (talk) 17:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I think in regard to pressure, the lowest value is preferable even if offshore (with Opehelia onshore readings have been the only values with a reliable source I could find). The Brian pressure is a value from a Met Office map rather than a measured value.Lacunae (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
In regards to what I would think of being basic meteorological parameters, the met offices don't seem to actually produce such figures in an obvious manner (be it short term or longer) Which irks me, given they've decided to take on the naming mantle. UK Met did previously make use of their blog for summaries, though now appear to prefer using their Barometer site to host a twitter archive.Lacunae (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
The UKMO’s Twitter is acceptable as a reliable source. However, we could always use the various marine warnings UKMO issues. The shipping forecast for example.Jason Rees (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Dates of impact[edit]

Where the article states dates of impact, can we please be clear about the dates of impact, and not change them to duration or formation and dissipation dates.Lacunae (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


I'm tired of removing statements about "record early starts" and "record activities" from this page. If such records exist, they must be sourced and referenced.Lacunae (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Suggested re-name and expansion of content.[edit]

With the establishment of the French, Spanish and Portuguese naming system, coordinated with the UK and Ireland one under the auspices of EUMETNET, I think this page should be renamed "2017-18 European windstorm season" and expanded accordingly, rather than duplicating effort in having multiple pages. Lacunae (talk) 12:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Given that for this storm season there are two naming systems in place (UK/IE and Fr/Es/Pt) it would make sense to have them as two separate articles. If the two systems do indeed combine for the 2018–2019 season, it would then make sense to have a single, combined article. At the moment this is a UK/Ireland article with a random add-on at the bottom. I'm going to spin off that section into 2017–18 Western Europe windstorm season. If it is decided to jump the gun (as I see it) and combine the two different systems, then they can just be merged back into one. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 13:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Already I think there are at least 8 naming systems being used by various nations and agencies, hence the coordination table in the article, so creating separate pages for each would be quite a large task. As @Jason Rees: has said above, there is interest in moving the articles in a direction in which more information could be included (for instance such storms this year as Herwart and Xavier and others) outside the UK and Ireland only remit. At the moment, of course the section regarding the Fr/Es/Pt storms is undeveloped, they've only just named their first and it is yet to affect anywhere. I've added merge templates and linked to discussion here to see what the consensus among editors is.Lacunae (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
And as much as it pains me to cite tropical article WIki precedent, 2017 Pacific typhoon season for instance uses names list from multiple parties.Lacunae (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Wow I must be dreaming to see Lacunae link to a tropical article, but anyway I do feel that it would be a wise idea for the articles to be merged and expanded to cover each one of the European naming schemes.Jason Rees (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd oppose this, for this year at least. They are, for now, seperate with seperate naming lists and meteorological organisations involved. However, I would make this the last year we have a "x-x UK and Ireland windstorm season" article as from next year the two schemes are to be merged into one, for which a single article would be appropriate. Buttons0603 (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

While they are seperate agencies and naming lists but its not always seperate weather systems, which is what we should focus on and not the naming schemes. In fact in their press-release announcing the naming scheme, Meteo France say that they are going to retain the names that UKMO assigns and visa versa.Jason Rees (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't think for now that it woud be wise to merge both articles. I guess it makes more sens to wait until the spring to see how many and which systems intersect.
Otherwise: There is no such thing like an "Western Europe windstorm season". Aside from that being OR there is another issue: PT and ES and the extreme South of FR are Southern Europa, not Western Europe. --Matthiasb (talk) 23:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
There's no such thing as a "UK and Ireland windstorm season either", so the article titles are already arguably OR.Lacunae (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. For that reason in DE:WP I named those articles in the pattern "List of windstorms affecting the British Isles" (de:Liste der Winterstürme auf den Britischen Inseln 2017–18). --Matthiasb (talk) 01:30, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps a tweak of title to the format of "2017-18 Named European windstorms" to incorporate the UK/IE, Fr/Es/Pt and Nordic named storms would be less OR?Lacunae (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Wouldnt "named" be redundant since as i understand it most of Europe is now covered by a naming scheme.Jason Rees (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Actually there is a bunch of naming schemes. Also Norway, Denmark and Sweden have their own naming schemes in which Sweden respects the Norwegian names and vice versa. Then we have Italy where a recent storm (FUB's Numa) received a name (Attila), but I didn't figure out who is responsible, if any. Then there is a kind of scheme in Croatia and last not least the known scheme of the FU Berlin with naming of all lows and deeps affecting Germany. We will see how that will work out in future. Also I guess that abovementioned Numa wouldn't have received a name bei FR or ES since the system was week in their aor. --Matthiasb (talk) 01:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
PS: "2017-18 European windstorms" seems reasonable and reflects also that there are at least four to five different areas in which lows affecing Europe are developping: subtropic lows, polar lows, Mediterrenean lows, Skandinavia and Russia. --Matthiasb (talk) 01:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Now we have had at least 6 systems in that winter (Ophelia, Eleanor, Fionn, David, Hartmut, Emma) that affected both the British and the Western European responsibility areas. Isn't it time to really think about a unified 2017-18 European winter article or at least one that summarizes the most important events in that winter? Otherwise the two articles are getting more and more redundant. --T0x0plasma (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I note that it seems that the meterological editors @Matthiasb and Lacunae: and myself are in agreement over the articles being merged, however, I wonder if @Buttons0603 and Gaia Octavia Agrippa: have changed their minds about the article being merged yet.Jason Rees (talk) 20:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes I agree to merge. Buttons0603 (talk) 01:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Ok thanks @Buttons0603: - I have now roughly merged the two articles.Jason Rees (talk) 03:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Ophelia gust 191km/h at Fastnet[edit]

I've edited the page to reflect this value appears to have not been accepted by Met Eireann as a record in both their monthly summary and the annual one for 2017.Lacunae (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


Where does this central pressure of 937 hPa comes from? --Matthiasb (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

That comes from the Met Office chart central pressure of the low "Evi" 937 hPa (0000 UTC 15 Jan 2018 UKMO Analysis , 940 FUB , Trausti Jónsson blog 934 ) which I think would be the parent low to the "tightening of isobars" such that Fionn was, see Liam Dutton's thoughts about the naming of Fionn. Lacunae (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC) oh the earlier was down to 935, I missed that. Lacunae (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
@Lacunae: Thank you for the info. I wasn't aware of that low offshore-pressure, and I think we should add "offshore" to the storms where such a value is used otherwise a station's name since we did not handle all storms the same way.
In a different issue – storm Georgina – I am not sure wether that "Watchers" website does qualify as a reliable source. In the German article I sourced some parts of the statement by Independent and BBC (and added some more details) however I wasn't able to confirm the 225 km/h windgust.
Also I had problems to verify the 93 mph gust for storm David in Capel Curig, since the Met Office's tweet with the highest gusts observed does name values from four other stations. However I found it confirmed in the DWD's Friederike summary (link see de:Sturmtief Friederike#Weblinks)
And if we already are discussing things… considering the naming confusion on the Met Ofice's blog there had been a blog post on that issue and on wether the Met Office failed to name David Georgina, see @ And last but not least there was an interesting blog entry, pitifully not reliable as a source for the article, on this issue, see @ (which I found when I was googling the above-mentioned 93 mph gust). --Matthiasb (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Empty subsection[edit]

Why is there an empty subsection titled "Subsequent naming confusion and an "unnamed storm"?" I seem to recall there was a storm (or high winds at least) recently that didn't get named, but is anyone planning to add information to it? This is Paul (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

According to the history of this article @Lacunae: Who is the main editor of this article is planning to expand the section in the [next few days].Jason Rees (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Great stuff, thanks for the response. This is Paul (talk) 15:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, It's taking longer to write than I thought, I should get something up by the end of the weekend, and I'm hoping an empty section to fill will motivate me more. Feel free to remove it if it's really bothersome.Lacunae (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Looking into the situation further - it seems that the UKMO didnt name since it fell below criteria and because of MF calling it David. This again brings up the question of merging this page into a European windstorms page.Jason Rees (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
@Lacunae: No problem, it's not bothering me, I was just curious. This is Paul (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: IMHO first of all there should be an article on Naming of storms in Europe which could be started with moving the winterstorm names in the UK and Ireland article. In the German WP we have such an article (de:Namensvergabe für Wetterereignisse), and we have observed at least five different naming systems (though some of them yet aren't included in the article). Those are:

  1. the FUB naming scheme for lows and highs wether they are sever or not [which was adopted in press and public only after cca. 1980 – before the affected region or (in)famous ships gave name to the storm]
  2. the British/Irish collaboration
  3. the France/Spain/Portugal collboration
  4. Norway, Denmark and Sweden are naming storms for different lists but they use commonly the firstly given name (what means that Sweden only seldom has the possibility to name a storm). See: dk:Navngivne storme i Danmark.
  5. There exists a storm names list from Croatia but with little information how it is used.

We also noted that sometimes the press in Italy and Greece referred to local names but so far were not able to find out wether the names were made up by the press ad hoc or by whothefuckever. --Matthiasb (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Just a quick, drive-by post of a link to User:Jason Rees/History of weather system naming, which I think covers most of what you've pointed out.Lacunae (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Beast from the East?[edit]

I just don't feel like this should be a part of the article (as its own section at least) as it is an anticyclone (in fact a series of them, not just one discrete weather system) rather than anything even vaguely resembling a European windstorm (admittedly Fionn stretches the boundaries already); so I've boldly removed it. It does now have its own article over at 2018 Great Britain and Ireland cold wave, which appears currently to be in development by another editor, and I have added a "see also" link to the top of the Storm Emma section for this article. Hopefully with my reasoning this won't be too much of an issue for anyone but if consensus is ultimately for it to be reinstated here then that is fine also. Buttons0603 (talk) 01:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The Beast from the East is linked to Storm Emma so there should be some mention of it. I'm happy for the sections to be merged, but a wholesale removal of Beast would seem inappropriate. This is Paul (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Botch job[edit]

Someone decided to merge the articles relating to the UK and European windstorm seasons and did a bit of a botch job on it. There are still links leading to the former articles and the Beast from the East is now missing. They're two completely different systems and shouldn't be merged together without a discussion first, which, as far as I'm aware, hasn't happened. Any thoughts? This is Paul (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I performed the merger after a consensus was formed above. This was because the overlap between the two articles was getting to the stage where it was seriously redundant, with six systems warranting a section in both articles. I will also note that while it is currently two different naming systems, they are reportedly being merged together next year and besides that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t cover both systems in the same article. As for the Beast From the East, it was removed per WP:Bold before the merger took place by an editor who felt that it wasn’t relevant to the article and has launched a discussion above about it.Jason Rees (talk) 14:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
It's fine to merge them both, but the new article needs updating as it's quite UK-centric at present (even retaining the old title in the lede). It's also worth remembering the storms relate to Western Europe rather than Europe as a whole. This is Paul (talk) 14:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I think I will repost the Beast from the East infobox in its section. I understand that an article about European windstorms shouldn't concentrate much on anticyclonic cold waves, but the new article only concentrates on the effects of the cold wave on the British Isles, which is a huge understatement. The cold wave has cost more than 60 lives in whole Europe so far and I don't see why the new article only concentrates on the Isles. Furthermore, Hartmut is an official name, given by the Free University of Berlin, not a nickname. --T0x0plasma (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Another point: I don't think that merging the two articles is a problem because of the two different naming systems. The Australian tropical cyclone responsibility area has three naming systems and still there is one article about it. Y'all see, it works. ;) I think there are two crucial advantages that come from merging the two European windstorm season articles: lower redundance and and better overview over the topic (making the new article more reader-friendly). --T0x0plasma (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
It's starting to look more organised now. Agree with your comments about Beast. This is Paul (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The Beast from the East: more deaths[edit]

Feb 28, more deaths:

  1. Serbia 1
  2. Slovenia 1
  3. Denmark 1

Feb 27, more Deaths:

  1. Netherlands 1
  2. Germany 1
  3. Denmark 1
  4. Serbia 1
  5. Slovinia 1

Feb 28,, 2 Romanians died.

Feb 27, more Deaths:

  1. Poland 4
  2. Romania 2
  3. France 3

Trish pt7 (talk) 23:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


Dublin airport shut- March 1

Feb 27, Snow has blocked many roads and damaged power pylons across Albania, leading to power cuts in many rural areas.

Feb 27, Meteo France, put a large part of the country on alert for dangerous levels of snow, ice and violent wind. Trish pt7 (talk) 23:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Feb 27,, In Bosnia, roofs were caving in under the weight of snow.

Trish pt7 (talk) 00:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Mar 1,, Many flights canceled at Heathrow.Trish pt7 (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Feb 26,, Strong winds have also damaged power plants, causing blackouts mainly in rural areas, while many schools in the countryside were closed or held with reduced classes in Albania.

Trish pt7 (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


Feb 28,

  1. 182 centimetres paralysed the northern Croatian town of Delnice
  2. Naples saw its most snow since 1956.

Feb 27,, Record snowfall of 72 inches paralyzed a northern Croatian town and a nearby village had to be evacuated.

Trish pt7 (talk) 00:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria[edit]

I think if we are expanding this page it would be good to reach a consensus on inclusion criteria. In drawing up an idea for a wikiproject I formulated these criteria, but would appreciate some feedback in distinguishing between level 1 and 2 for the purposes of this page.

  • Level 1. Named storms by a meteorological agency in Europe (though exceptions occur i.e. "Zeus" 2017) -to be listed in coordination table at 2017–18 European windstorm season and List of European windstorms. To include comparative names in various naming schemes and dates of impact.
  • Level 2. Storms have a section at 2017-18 European windstorm season article, basic detail of warnings, image, short infobox, brief summary. (It should be remembered that naming of storms is warning system based on forecasting, while Wikipedia deals in notable events which have occurred). -perhaps this level could be whether they are investigated by
  • Level 3. Storms which are assessed by the external agency [|] as qualifying. They reach notability criteria (and usually enough material) to make a better than stub Wikipedia article of their own, and their own listing at List of European windstorms. typically use a default value of €200 million, though do qualify notable storms which do not exceed this value ("Zeus" 2017 and Ex-Ophelia 2017), and so can be used for our purposes as an independent outside source for assessing notability.

Lacunae (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest that any system named by a WMO recognised service that impacts Europe gets included in this article. That includes NHC, UKMO etc but not FU Berlin. With regards to FU Berlin, we need to ensure that their names are only used when it is appropriate that is when its combined with another system or notable enough to be included in its own right.Jason Rees (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, the Deutscher Wetterdienst uses all the FU Berlin name. And actually the ZAMG uses them as well. And if we speak of, they use them. As well as Swiss Re, Munich Re, Aon Benfield. Pretty much the reinsurance sphere does ignore the UK/IE names mostly, so far. So this suggestion won't work well. --Matthiasb (talk) 02:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC) BTW: Yuliya ("Felix") would be the secundary low (source: [1]) of the former nor'easter "Riley" ("…verlagerte sich das Tief Riley, welches im Osten der USA für heftige Regen- und Schneefälle in Verbindung mit Sturm sorgte, ostwärts… Folglich verstärkt sich das Tief, welches bei uns voraussichtlich den Namen "Yuliya" erhält, zu einem kräftigen Sturmtief und zieht bis Sonntag in die Biskaya.")
Using Perils criteria for assessing the notability for European windstorms has been something I've used for the past couple of years or so on en Wikipedia, and I think it has been successfully done. Looking at the number of storms named in this season (around 20) it is clear we probably need a way to discern those which are notable (literature states on average, "a winter season sees between 2 to 3 major winter storms impact Europe" or "a seasonal average is 4.6 windstorms"), and I don't think we've had a season exceeding the scale of the famously active ones of 1989/1990 or 2013/2014. Also My interpretation is that the information there confirms Yuliya is the FUB name for Felix.Lacunae (talk) 10:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Felix = Yuliya = ex-Riley (acually the secondaa low in File:2018-03-06-0627z NOAA-20 dnb Riley-II (Yuliya).png.
I am not sure if it is valid to compare 1989/1990 or 2013/2014 with this winter. The whole naming thing showed at least that before now the view might have been focused too much on Western/Central Europe. It shows also that the weather in Europe is much more complex than in the CONUS (where, simplified said, you have (besides the Pacific Northwest) two types of notable windstorm events: Alberta clippers and nor'easters. Nevertheless, DWD stated st one point last November that the autumn was unusal in poducing three early storms before/in November, and then we had this insane back to back events Fionn/David (Evi/Friedrike) only two weeks after Eleaner (Burglind), both according two Aon Benfield billion dollar events (which usually occurs about 30 times per year in the whole world). On the other hand Met Éireann and the MetOffice have named storms which really do not seem notable (e.g. Dylan). --Matthiasb (talk) 09:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Season summary chart[edit]

If you look at the season summary bar set diagram, 14 of the currently included 17 storms are marked as "black" (maximum gust force of 14 or higher on the extended Beaufort scale). The point is, since this article isn't limited to the British Isles anymore, there is a high probability that extreme gusts occur on the European mainland if they haven't already occurred in Great Britain or Ireland. Maybe we should change the intensity range of the diagram from 6-14 Bft to 9-17 Bft? I mean, even the weakest storm of the season (Dylan) reached 12 Bft. Another idea I have is to exclude all mountanious gusts from the article (above an exact limit, maybe 500 m?), resulting in a more precise representation of the storms' intensity. Or maybe both of the ideas should be implemented? I think that if 14 out of 17 storms reach the maximum intensity class in this chart, the classification may seem pointless to readers. Furthermore, if there will be a concensus to emphasize on the most notable storms of the season (which are naturally among the strongest ones), all storms left in the summary will probably be in that 14 Bft maximum class, meaning no more differentiation at all. --T0x0plasma (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I think I've made the same point (more or less) for the past 3 years. The main problem is that devising a new scale would be regarded as original research. I quite agree that mountainous and exposed coastal location gusts should be treated more cautiously, but are sometimes not easy to identify in what gets reported. Other metrics are available, though generally not until after some time, and then not for all events (see for an idea).Lacunae (talk) 20:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Intention to remove the Beast from the East material.[edit]

This section seems largely to be a duplication of another page where the material is better suited, inline links to this material from this page or a see also is probably the best way to deal with it in regards to this "windstorm season".Lacunae (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree as this wasn't actually a windstorm, and would be more appropriate in the other article. But although the Beast from the East shouldn't have its own section here, we should still briefly mention it as part of the section about Storm Emma, as the two systems were related. This is Paul (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Indeed.Lacunae (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Just a further thought on this, the Beast from the East affected other countries apart from the UK and Ireland, and currently the cold wave article only covers those two nations, so we should add more information there before removing it from here. This is Paul (talk) 14:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
I will try to find sources for the death tolls.Trish pt7 (talk) (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Hector removal[edit]

I'm curious why this named storm has been removed, given there is referenced material for it. I'm also curious about where this supposed date for the end of the season came from.Lacunae (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Beast from the East death toll[edit]

The section gives three different death tolls, 87, 88, and 93. Whichever one is right should be the only one given. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 22:29, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)