Talk:February 2013 North American blizzard/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Naming

As annoying as this discussion is, for the first time since TWC started naming storms on their own, the TWC winter storm name is commonly being used to denote the storm by reliable news sources, above and beyond the scattered articles explaining *why* people were using the name. As of now, in Google News, a non-exhaustive list of reliable sources using the name Winter Storm Nemo solely as the name of the storm (rather than article about the naming which is in today's NY Times) includes the Wall Street Journal, Newsday, the Jersey Journal, Christian Science Monitor, New York Magazine, the Republican (Springfield, MA paper, not the party, the Lehigh Valley Express-Times, the International Business Times, the Concord Monitor, the Morris Daily Record, the Saginaw News, the Poughkeepsie Journal, and so on and on and on. New York and Bloomberg are giving "Nemo" safety instructions and using the #nemo tag on official emergency information given on their Twitter account.

Even if Nemo is sourced from a commercial concern and not the "official" name (as odd a concept as that is, from a legal standpoint), the fact is that Nemo *is* being used to convey information about the storm. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and avoiding a name for something commonly used is just strange. It would be the equivalent of making sure that Hulk Hogan is always called "Terry Bollea" because Hulk Hogan is a commercial name not recognized as official by any branch of government. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I dunno, the front page of Google news doesn't give it that name. I think it might be worth a mention, but I don't think that should be the name for the article. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with C.C. To elaborate further, until these TWC names catch on (because frankly I'm not too excited about some of them and just generally the idea that they exist in the private sector only), I think we need to handle page naming on a case-by-case basis. There's overwhelming evidence that this storm is being referred to by its TWC name, and I think we need to honor that here. Other storms thus far, not so much, and we should leave them in their generic state. Winter Storm Nemo should be the name of this page, not a redirect to February 2013 nor'easter, something people would never think to search for. Jared (t)  18:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree-- the overwhelming consensus amongst all major media is that this is Nemo. Strong support use of name "Winter Storm Nemo," rather than non-descriptive Wikipedia-created name "February 2013 nor'easter." And double strong support mention of name "Nemo" within current article regardless of whether or not re-named. ProfessorTofty (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The problem with people searching is solved by the redirect. There was a rename discussion over Winter Storm Athena (which turned into November 2012 nor'easter), an AfD for Winter Storm Brutus, as well as an an AfD for the entire "storm season" as named by TWC, where consensus was to delete the storm season article and to use names like "February 2013 nor'easter" as this article currently does. There was also an RFC over the use of TWC's names where the consensus was TWC's names are invalid. I think that's plenty of precedent that we can conclude the article retain its generic title. I'm also not sure whether including the nickname in the lede is appropriate given precedent, but it seems like it should go somewhere if it's being widely used and doesn't look too bad now that it's not stuck in the first sentence. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 18:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Like it or not, the name has stuck and is being used by a large number of media outlets to refer to the storm. The general Wikipedia naming conventions that say an article title should be at its common name would seem to take over here. The article should be moved. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

A large number of outlets doesn't really mean much, since plenty of other outlets are NOT using anything but generic language. E.g., CNN [1], MSNBC [2], and the BBC [3] are all just referring to the storm without referencing "Nemo" at the moment. Unless this becomes the common name AND there are references that state that "Winter Storm Nemo" IS the common name (other than The Weather Channel), it's just a nickname that some outlets are using. Given several similar past discussions as I gave above, specifically on the validity of TWC's names, I don't see why we would adopt a name that some organizations are using and some aren't, and that the NWS recommends *not* be used. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 18:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I think there is a difference between creating articles for and naming every TWC storm (like Brutus), and doing it only for the relevant storms. Wikipedia's series of Atlantic Hurricane articles certainly doesn't create an article for "insignificant" tropical storms, and I don't think anyone here would argue for that either. Like Rreagan said, the common name is Nemo. It's only been a few days, but already, anyone you mention the word Nemo to would know what you're taking about. What is this storm going to be referred to in 10 years? I don't know, but probably not some arbitrary name created by Wikipedians for consistency. In reality, TWC's creation of a (albeit poor) naming scheme shows the public demand for names for these storms. The public has clearly responded well, and in line with WP policy I don't even see why this should be a debate. The quoted discussions that have taken place previously shouldn't have standing here, because the impact that this storm would have had on that debate would have turned it into a different animal. Jared (t)  19:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Hehehehe...yes, the TC project does. =) I know of FA and GA articles on completely insignificant named Atlantic TCs. Strong support for the move, since any google search would likely yield an overwhelming response for Nemo. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I have in fact read the discussion about winter storm naming earlier. It was an easier issue back then as the Weather Channel name was less used in reliable sources at that time. The notability of these TWC winter storm names appears to have increased considerably since Athena, so I don't think that's the same conversation any longer. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, the NWS is king here. Regardless of other media outlets, until they officially recognize the name (or at least some of their offices do), TWC names should NOT be used as article names. They should redirect, though. CrazyC83 (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I’m sorry to say it, but it appears that TWC is winning the battle. Many outlets, like Huffington Post and the Daily Beast, are using the title. And while agencies like CNN are not, the common name is clearly Nemo. Take stock of Twitter, Facebook, or the internet in general. Nemo has won the common name battle. If it is the common name, it should be the title. Wikipedia should not make political statements that outright reject a name because it was created by an “unofficial” source. If it is the common name, it is the common name. People appear to be looking for “Nemo”, not for “February 2013 nor’easter”. The previous RfCs could not have anticipated that the name would be adopted as it has this time. Athena &c. were rather ignored, but that isn’t the case here. RGloucester (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It'd be interesting to go down the path with the possibility that it's not really a "TWC" name. Sure, TWC came up with it. But technically, it's hit the mainstream and become the "common name" for the storm. It's not my understanding that TWC is purporting to claim any rights to the name. Using this logic, the originator of the name is irrelevant, whether its TWC or NWS. Common name is common name. Jared (t)  20:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Rename, There are plenty of reliable sources CNN included that dont use the name Nemo. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, of course CNN doesn't use the name "Nemo"; they're competing directly with The Weather Channel, they wouldn't want to use their name. ProfessorTofty (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Along with these sources: (NBC), (The Huffington Post), (Fox news) and the sources mentioned above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

More sources that dont use Nemo: (Bloomberg),(The Herald) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Huff Post has begun using Nemo in many articles today [4]. In fact, Huff Post has a whole page dedicated to the storm titled as such [5]. Wall Street Journal is using it as well [6]. NBC News has got it as well, in some places [7]. Bloomberg News has it [8]. What is very apparent, from what I’ve seen, is that yesterday these sources were not using Nemo. However, as they have seen it be adopted on social media and elsewhere, they too have started using it. Wikipedia should do the same. RGloucester (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The link Presented by NBC you found is referring to the video from the weather channel. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. If certain sources have chosen to forbid "Nemo" because they feel they're competing with The Weather Channel, that's their look-out. This thing is all over Twitter. ProfessorTofty (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

What do Wikipedia's own statistics show? How many searches for "Nemo" have come in, as opposed to searches for "February storm in northeast US," "nor'easter of February 2013," "2013 New England blizzard," and the like? Jacob (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Dozens of reliable sources referring to it as "Nemo" and how many reliable sources referring to it as "February 2013 nor'easter"? I'm guessing none. The train has left the station and Wikipedia is getting left behind. And as of an hour ago CNN does seem to have at least 1 story on the name of the storm here Rreagan007 (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Is it maybe time to hold a formal vote regarding the matter, then? ProfessorTofty (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

#Nemo is trending in Twitter, while there is no results for February 2013 nor'easter (compare it with Winter storm Nemo)... doesn’t that means anything? ★ Nacho ★ ★ 22:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I think we're missing the big picture here. The worst of the storm hasn't happened yet. Afew years back, a blizzard was commonly known as something stupid like "Snowicane". I don't believe that name is that common anymore. I think the bigger focus now should be on improving the article and keeping it up to date, not about what it's called on Twitter. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Keeping the article title up to date is important as well. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course "February 2013 nor'easter" isn't going to trend on Twitter. It's a generic name. If you want to do a comparison and see how popular "Winter Storm Nemo" is compared to alternatives, you'd need to look at the number of people mentioning "storm" or "blizzard" and similar terms, which is of course not an easy task. Just comparing the two terms isn't a reasonable comparison since the current one is a generic descriptive name. (Not to mention, many of the tweets seem to be about random other Nemo-related things rather than the storm itself at this point.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Counter proposal: February 2013 nor'easter --> Blizzard of 2013 (Not a formal move request)

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

---

Before I start I would like to state that this is NOT an official move request I am seeing based on how this was classified as a Blizzard after the name "Winter Storm Nemo" was coined, how many people would support the name as I believe it is the WP:COMMONNAME.

• Sources:

(CBS)
(Boston.com)
(Christian Science Moniter)
CNN (Calling it a Blizzard)
(BBC) (Calling it a Blizzard)
(The Wall Street Journal) (Calling it a Blizzard)
(New York times) (Calling it a blizzard)

Please state your opinions below with Support or Oppose. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Closing discussion As OP I can see consensus is against the title. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - The name is too generic. Just because some people call it a “blizzard” (which is not a proper noun in many of the articles you linked) doesn’t mean that it is the Blizzard of this year. Who knows if their is another future blizzard this year, that is worse than this one. I prefer the current title to this, in the event Nemo fails. RGloucester (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Also, I might mention that many sources are calling the storm “Blizzard Nemo”: NPR IBT Forbes — Preceding unsigned comment added by RGloucester (talk • contribs) 18:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - per RGloucester and reasons stated in the above sections (can't pick one name over the others). United States Man (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - based on the discussions above there has been no consensus on changing the title, so we can chose this name above all others. Camyoung54 talk 19:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose though eventually moving this to a more generic title like 'February 2013 North American Blizzard' may not be a bad idea. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I would go for something like that. United States Man (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Meteorological history

The met hist section is missing information on the cold low coming out of the midwest that combined with the subtropical low. It currently only contains subtropical low information. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a link for this? As for the combination, that hasn't happened yet. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

[9] - There's already some in the impact section, which mentions snowfalls in Wisconsin, definitely the storm coming out of the midwest that's combining with the subtropical low. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

CNN has been droning on about it for several days. About the two lows, one from the west, the other from the south, and the timing of the merger, whether it would be at NYC or Boston... -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe some of the LONG Lede should be put here? Kennvido (talk) 02:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Canada

This article is lacking on coverage outside the US. Since the storm is also affecting Canada, there should be information about that. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Post several links on here about effects in Canada and it will be added. Otherwise, be patient and wait a few days for everything to get sorted out. United States Man (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Major Canadian news sites: [10], [11], [12], [13] (weather news) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I added in various Canadian info, but I'm not clear whether Ontario belongs in the lead. Was that northern storm system a nor'easter yet when it hit Canada? I'd say whether or not Ontario is covered more prominently depends on that; after all, we're not covering places like Illinois and Michigan as much as the places getting hit by the full nor'easter, which seems appropriate. (It looks like Atlantic Canada will take a hit from the nor'easter after it moves through New England, though.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, the Hydrometeorological Prediction Center is describing it as the "Great Lakes and Northeast Major Winter Storm" in its advisories: [14]. Maybe we should be renaming it the article along those lines ("February 2013 winter storm" or similar) and covering the effects in IL/MI/etc and Canada more? – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

By definition, nor'easters cannot really hit Ontario. On the other hand, that storm combined three different storm systems (not two), and southern Ontario's share came to over a foot across the board (nearly two feet in some areas). Also, to date, the Canadian death toll was highest in Ontario. That should make it significant enough to emphasise in the lede on the Canadian side of the storm ... at least until more information from the Maritimes reaches the news. - Tenebris 15:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.201.5 (talk)

There's a 4ft storm surge and flooding in the streets of Shelbourne, Nova Scotia (CTV News) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

References? I assume the storm is doing SOMETHING more than just randomly dropping snow now that it's headed north, but we don't seem to have a lot of folks from up north contributing...so details are a bit scarce and definitely should be expanded on. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 03:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Check the four news sites I listed earlier for Canada, such as the top story on one of them [15] -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 10:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Environment Canada would be a better source for the meteorological history, but if you have news sources that can be used, feel free to put those in. Inks.LWC (talk) 10:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

In the News

Can we patch up the missing reference and submit this at WP:ITN/C? Jehochman ^Talk 03:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Well the name remains in dispute other than that sure this would be newsworthy as it is impacting so many. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Getting more visibility to help fill out the impact sections better would certainly help as well. I cleaned up the missing Canadian citations for the most part, the other uncited bit can just be removed if that's all that's required to submit it for WP:ITN. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 03:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Everything is now sourced =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

FYI you have an ongoing nom on ITN/C. You'll need to fix the orange tags before we can post. --IP98 (talk) 01:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

...which are now gone. :) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

"Name" section being stuck up top

Even if there is a guideline suggesting alternate names be at the top (is there one? a change entry suggested there is...), it's horrid clutter up there. Especially since it just keeps getting longer and longer. That section really ought to stay at the bottom so the article is readable, and so the focus isn't on whether or not Finding Nemo is relevant to the storm's name and other associated miscellany. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 05:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support move to bottom This is getting crazy the first info should be info reguarding the storm and not it's name. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, alternative names should be in the lead section, per WP:LEAD "significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph." And generally when there is a "name" or "etymology" section in an article, it's the very first section after the lead (example 1, example 2). I see no reason to break with standard Wikipedia formatting here. The section should be at the top. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Note "should be." It would be impossible to include the names in the lead and still include the contextual information that's grown into the "Name" section; that can't apply when a separate section is used. From MOS:LEADALT: "Alternatively, if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section; it is recommended that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves." There's no clarification on *where* that section should go, so bottom seems like the better choice since it's more reader-friendly. (Counterexample: November 2012 nor'easter#Name.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 05:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Logically, if alternative names are to be mentioned in the lead as early as possible, then the "Names" or "Eytmology" sections should be located at the very top. There is a very good reason for this. You include alternative names early on in the article, because if a reader knows a topic by one name (such as "Nemo") they may not be sure they have arrived at the article that they are looking for until they see that name. This is standard Wikipedia practice, and if you want to break from it then the burden is on you to articulate a good reason to do so. And "it looks cluttered" is not a good reason. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand that reasoning, and in general I'd agree the names should be nice and visible for the reason you give. Unfortunately, in this case, the section is long enough that it pushes other information further down. "It looks cluttered" is valid when it means the reader is barraged with trivia over the name, rather than having information about the storm be presented more readably. (Really, we shouldn't need a "Name" section at all...that's another reason that moving it back seems reasonable.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 05:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm willing to propose a compromise. If "Winter Storm Nemo" is put back in the lead somewhere so that readers will know they have arrived at the article they are looking for, then I would be okay with moving the "Names" section further down in the article. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I was actually thinking of similar, so I went ahead and did that. (And included "Blizzard of 2013", since that seems to be becoming another popular alternative.) Looks much less cluttered now (though I kinda feel like it's an end run around the naming issue. :) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 06:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The decision based on past storms this season has been to not bold alternative names in the lead. I've changed the article to reflect this. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Per MOS:LEAD, "If the subject of the page has...more than one name...each additional name should be in boldface on its first appearance." Rreagan007 (talk) 07:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The subject of the page does not have more than one name. It has several unofficial nicknames. Not all of them should be bolded, and none of them should be in the lead. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Unofficial nicknames are still names. Look, we really need to remember why we do certain things, like bolding the first instance of alternative names for a topic. It is so that readers will be able to quickly identify that they have arrived at the article they are looking for. This is explained well at Wikipedia:Superfluous bolding explained: "the article's title (which is also the name of the article's subject) is mentioned at the earliest natural point in the first sentence of the article. This name and any other names for the topic (synonyms) are bolded to help readers recognize what they are looking at". Rreagan007 (talk) 08:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand why it's done, but that's not how any other winter storm article has done it. This is the only article that has the name bolded, if even included at all. The consensus so far has been to only include the name if notable, and then, not to bold it. Inks.LWC (talk) 08:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Naming the winter storms by The Weather Channel is solely a marketing ploy to give viewers a way of relating to the storm name which is then only formally fed by their channel. It's controversial, unrecognized, and it should have absolutely no place in the article. TWC seems to be out of the weather forecasting business and focused on delivering a repackaged NWS forecast as infotainment. Wikipedia should not encourage their branding. Doyna Yar (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

This is no longer TWC’s name. It is now a common name used by many people, regardless of its original source. It is recognized by the many people and news outlets that use it. It must be included in the lead. Many of the sources cited by this article even use the name. Anything else is absurd. RGloucester (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

(Break) I think RGloucester's suggestion is "absurd." You can't just put one name in the lead without including the others. And including the others would make it too cluttered to read. There is a perfectly good section at the bottom of the page (It is at the bottom of the page because is has absolutely no meaning to the article and should go after all meaningful content). United States Man (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

We're not here to judge what the correct name or what the superior name is. This is an encyclopedia and the standard for naming articles is usage. The NWS has no jurisdiction here, what has jurisdiction is notability and common usage. The motives of TWC are absolutely irrelevant to the discussion and to bring that into a straightforward discussion of notability and common usage is a violation of WP:NPOV. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

All I keep hearing is that its the commonname... its the commonname... its the commonname.... its being used by the people, the people have spoken it is the one. Okay show how the name Winter Storm Nemo is the common name now? and not lets say Blizzard of 2013? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Blizzard of 2013 is not as common among the populace. Not to mention that we can’t very well use that here, as we don’t know whether another Blizzard will surmount it during this year. That’s would be like naming the article for Evelyn Nesbit “The Trial of the Century”. It simply isn’t feasible. RGloucester (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you please define "the populace", and how you determined what is common amongst said populace? Twitter trends and the number of Facebook friends calling it "Nemo" aren't "the populace", but that's what many people seem to be referencing. On the other hand, we can reasonably look at what media organizations (our actual sources!) are using...which seems to be many not using any single name, some calling it "Nemo", and some calling it "the Blizzard of 2013" or similar. (Not to mention multiple media orgs specifically rejecting "Nemo".) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 16:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Here are a few of those other names: Blizzard 2013, Blizzard of 2013, Mega Storm 2013, February 8-9 2013 Nor'easter, February Nor'easter, Super Mega Nor'easter of Doom 2013 (rediculous, but a name), and Nor'easter 2013. All of those are the same as Winter Storm Nemo. No one name is being used more than the others. Why doesn't anyone understand this. United States Man (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, I keep trying to tell people that the common name being used is not Nemo and there is evidence on Google to back this up. I have yet to see anyone counter this argument or explain how using the name Nemo is not a POV issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

As I said yesterday (the comment is near to top of the proposed move section), this is like politics. Arguing for your side without anything to back you up. United States Man (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I’ve referenced US Man’s comment before. Those names are not used. Nemo is. Nemo is not a POV issue. It is simply a common name. How could it be POV issue? If it is the name used, it is the name used. The nonsense about it being a “commercial name” doesn’t apply, because once people started using it, it became the common name. There are plenty of sources using Nemo, and people using Nemo. We’ ve shown many sources. RGloucester (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

If the names weren't used then where do you think I got them? Out of the air? United States Man (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

On a large scale. They are not used on a large scale. RGloucester (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

POV Issue

• I added a POV tag to the “Names” section, as I think it simply doesn’t show the significance of the name Nemo, and instead focuses on which sources do not use the name. Also, it applies the name is TWC’s name, when, in reality, it has become a name of the people. RGloucester (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Lede

Maybe some of the LONG lead should be put in the Met History? Kennvido (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Some of it has been copied over by others and myself, but we could definitely prune more of it now that that's happened. The meteorological history in the lead doesn't seem TOO excessive, but things like watches and warnings don't necessarily need to be up there. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, you know it's bad when the lead is excessively longer that meteorological history section. United States Man (talk) 05:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, both sections were horrid until User:TropicalAnalystwx13 kindly dumped a bunch of stuff into the lead. A long lead is at least better than an inadequate one... :) (But there's definitely more to prune from there...editing should hopefully be dying down on the article so it can be worked on more easily; e.g., without people like me making a typo every other save due to not previewing when trying to avoid the 20th edit conflict in a row.) Edit: And I think it's readable now after some pruning, even if it needs some work... – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 06:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Great job on the trimming people. Kennvido (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

It is unreasonably POV to not mention the common name NEMO in the lede.-96.237.4.73 (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Regardless of editors' opinions about The Weather Channel, the name "Nemo" is certainly a widely-used name for the storm. The policy on neutral point of view explicitly demands that all significant points of view should be covered. It does not say that only "neutral" points of view should be covered (if that even makes sense). Furthermore, it is essential that readers be able to identify the subject of the article by reading the first sentence. With many news outlets having adopted the term "Nemo", it is therefore essential to have this information there. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

If the name Nemo is placed up on top then the names "Blizzard of 2013", The Blizzard of 13, and Blizzard 2013 should be up there as well, Alot of sources are using the term "Blizzard" when it comes to the storm (Widely used as well). So putting one name without putting the rest which are used by lots of sources is POV. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Can we please try to use the letter of the policy (WP:NPOV) rather than invent our own opinions about it? Maintaining a neutral point of view does not mean that we should not include anything that "is POV" (in your words), but rather that the article—including the lead of the article—should include all significant points of view, roughly in proportion to their prevalence in reliable sources. "Winter Storm Nemo" appears in a great many reliable sources. I have no problem with including other names, similarly sourced. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay include all the names then and I wouldnt see it as a problem, the issue I see is that the title of the article is disputed, and the name nemo is not the only one being used by a wide range of reliable sources, if Nemo was the only name and the article was titled Nemo or something else I would agree.. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we need every minor variation of "Blizzard of 2013" to be included, at least not in the lead. Certainly, some sources do use this. I have not seen nearly as many sources use "mega storm", as was suggested in an earlier discussion. I think this is a fine balance at present. If there are more sources that use different names, then we can reassess. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay sure =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize a discussion popped back up in this section. I'm against the alternate names myself (since we have a "Names" section and there are questions over the TWC name in general), but if there's consensus to include them, then so be it. I would suggest "Blizzard of 2013" go before "Winter Storm Nemo" if that's the case, since it seems less POV to use another generic name before the contentious one. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Snowfall calculation

When snowfall is cited as reaching ex. 25 inches in an area, how is this being calculated? Does it mean 25 inches in the course of 24 hours or is it meant as 25 inches after duration of the storm? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.59.116.6 (talk) 10:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

It's normally for the duration of the storm. Kennvido (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

...after clearing a snowboard no more often than every six hours. Snowfall is a devil of a thing to measure and estimate. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

So which one is it? I'm just trying to understand this. If the cited sources are using different methods of calculating snowfall then there's no universality and quite pointless to have cited in the article, no? 46.59.116.6 (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

It's for the duration of the storm (unless a value is given "as of" some time, but now that the storm's ended, we shouldn't really have those.) User:Thegreatdr was referring to HOW those totals are calculated; see Snowboard (meteorology). – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see, thank you. The snowboard method seems to be mainly a North American meteorological tool. In the Nordic Countries, Snowfall measurements are made daily, monthly and seasonally, while those measured in less than a day are known as 'New Snow' measurements and are generally viewed as a highly inaccurate (according to different Nordic Meteorological Institutes).46.59.116.6 (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Top wind gusts

When I checked this article this morning, I found numerous inaccuracies regarding the top wind gusts of the storm. I've already fixed the largest, and I will proceed to fix the others. I am an expert in this area and please argue it out with me here before you change anything. I will now explain the problems and justify my actions:

1. The top wind gust from the storm was 39.6m/s, which rounds to 89mph. Throughout the storm, I updated the "top gust" row in the info box. This morning, I saw that user "2001:db8" had taken out both references to the 89mph wind gust I had placed in the article, on the grounds that the gust did not appear in the source. I cited the raw continuous winds data from the NDBC (National Data Buoy Center) for the MDRM1 station that recorded the gust. It is not actually a buoy, but a lighthouse on Mount Desert Rock, Maine outfitted with two RM Young industrial anemometers. This user erred in his review of the source located here (http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/data/realtime2/MDRM1.cwind), since he probably only examined the sustained wind column, in which the top wind was 32.4m/s (72mph). We are talking about gusts, and a text search through that source will clearly point out the 39.6m/s gust. In fact, it is seen that this gust occurred twice. I will also point out that the averaging/sampling methods used at the NDBC stations are very conservative. They frequently use 2, 3, or 5 second average wind gusts instead of the 1 second or instantaneous gusts that spotters like myself report, and they also often only sample for gusts during a ten minute interval out of the hour (at least in the Std. Met. data). It is therefore likely that the actual instantaneous top gust at this location was precipitously higher than 89mph, but I digress.

Please keep this accurate value in the article.

2. The 84mph gust at Cuttyhunk is also mentioned, and it is wrong. The Weather Channel got this wrong too. There was indeed an 37.6m/s (84mph) gust (not 83mph like it says in the referenced article) - but it occurred at the Buzzards Bay entrance tower, station ID BUZM3 at 80ft above sea level. (http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/data/realtime2/BUZM3.cwind)

I will revise the language of this article to state something along the lines of "84mph gust recorded off the shore of Cuttyhunk, MA". I presume the cause of this error either to be the simplicity of stating the name of the land closest to the observation and therefore most identifiable to casual media audiences, or the fact that the NWS Local Storm Report stated "6 WSW CUTTYHUNK, MA" for the location, causing the temptation to omit the "6 miles west-south-west" part. The NWS Local Storm Report is the originator of the 83mph error, which is one under the actual value of 84mph. I have no idea why they did this. As I linked to above, the official observation from the NDBC was 37.6m/s, which converts to 84.1mph.

I will now make these revisions; please argue with me here before you change anything. Thanks.

75.68.125.131 (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Another note: If anyone wants to add the 81mph gust at Portland, CT or the 82mph gust at Westport, CT then be my guest, but please note that the former was measured at an elevation of 60ft, and the latter at 139ft. The official height for wind measurement is 10m (33ft), and anything higher isn't considered an official surface observation. That's a fact that's been ignored by TWC and all the dumb news media that have included these shady gusts but have completely ignored the valid 89mph top gust in Maine. Quite frustrating.

75.68.125.131 (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

You're correct about the 89mph gust; I was indeed accidentally looking at the "sustained" rather than the "gust" column when I awked and sorted the table. Oops. There's still a problem though, in that using that source doesn't tell us that there weren't other locations that recorded higher gusts; what we need is a source that states that was the highest overall from the storm. The language in the lead looks fine in that respect, but the infobox usage is a bit iffy without such a source. I did some searching and couldn't find a source, but I also didn't find any that have values as high as 89mph, so it seems reasonable to keep, as a WP:CALC-ish comparison of available sources or something... (A more explicit ref would still be best, of course.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 21:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

150 kilometres per hour (93 mph) sustained winds in Nova Scotia [16] so the 89mph gusts are not the highest winds of the storm -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I removed it from the infobox per that; it was kinda WP:OR anyways, and inclusion of higher and higher totals as they pop up would seem to be the same. It's fine in the lead (but Nova Scotia should be added) if it doesn't directly say that was the highest value, of course. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the source - however, I am disputing the validity of the 93mph figure. I would love to be proven wrong. First of all, there is nothing in the article that indicates that this is a sustained wind. Even as a gust, it rather seems a gross generalization, almost a figure of speech, the way they say "winds topped 150km/h". There is no credible reference to an actual observation. Every meteorologist knows that there were 90-100mph gusts out at sea with the storm (pretty much every model verified this), but we are talking about actual in situ surface observations here. The article linked does not provide that. Again, I would love to be proven wrong - but I'll need to see an official observation from Environment Canada before I let this rest. I am not an expert on the Canadian stations or local storm reporting procedures as I am with the New England station/spotter networks. However, it think it is apparent from the casual, unverified, ambiguous, colloquial, and unspecific nature of that newspaper article that the source is not sufficient to corroborate a 93mph figure being included in the article. The 89mph comes straight from the US Government official weather station data source. I would love to see the actual source for the 93mph, but will doubt it actually happened until that time. I won't immediately remove the figure from our article, as I will research this myself and eagerly await further word from you on the location of the actual observation - if it exists. Thanks. – 75.68.125.131 (talk) 03:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

After some further research, I have discovered the true winner: http://www.estevanmercury.ca/article/GB/20130210/CP02/302109965/-1/estmercury01/blizzard-that-buried-maritimes-and-central-canada-blasts-into&template=cpart 164kmh (102mph) gust specifically measured just east of Yarmouth. I'd still like to know more, but this is absolutely sufficient given the fact that an actual met from Environment Canada gave the precise value to the reporter. I will now revise the article with the figure. db8, I am going to put this into the info box as the highest gust - all other sources pale in comparison and the connotative diction in the article is suggestive that this is the "highest" gust (though the word is never used). If this still does not satisfy your OR objection, I appeal to the "Ignore a rule if it prevents you from making Wikipedia the best it can be" rule - this is a sound figure validated by numerous veracious sources. 75.68.125.131 (talk) 03:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Better source (gives precise location) if anyone wants to add it: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2013/02/10/ns-storm-winter-maritmes-second-day.html – 75.68.125.131 (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Picture of a snowman?

Why is there a picture of a snowman in the article? What's the point? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean? Everything of course and... Feel free to remove it if you want. The article is getting a little cluttered with pictures as it is and the snowman doesnt add much. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the snowman adds much either; it doesn't actually show the effects of the storm unlike other pictures. That snowman could've been built from any storm... (Even if it is a decent snowman!) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should alternative names of the storm be included in the lead

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

---

There are a number of well sourced alternative names of the storm, including Winter Storm Nemo and the Blizzard of 2013. Should these alternative names of the storm be included in the lead?

• Support. The term "winter storm Nemo" is used in many different reliable and independent news agencies. The references included in the excerpt are indicative, although by no means exhaustive, of the prevalence of the term "Nemo" in the news media:

The February 2013 nor'easter (also known as Winter Storm Nemo or the Blizzard of 2013) was a powerful winter storm that developed from the combination of two areas of low pressure, primarily affecting the Northeastern United States and parts of Canada, resulting in heavy snowfall and hurricane-force winds.

I myself, on first visiting this article to find out more about the storm, was actually not sure if this was the same storm that I had heard of referred to as "Nemo". It is unreasonable to expect that all readers will make the inference that it is, without being told so, since there seems to be no good reason not to give readers this information (unless we just want to be mean to readers, that is). Now we can extrapolate from traffic statistics to this page that at least half of all page views are via the disambiguation page Nemo and the redirect Winter Storm Nemo. It is a clear disservice to readers to not include very common alternative names to the storm prominently in the article. This is one reason that we put the title (and alternate titles) to an article in bold face: so that the reader knows clearly what the article is about.

The argument has been put forth in earlier discussions that it would be a violation of WP:NPOV to include mention of the alternative name "Nemo" in the article. The claim has been made (at different points by User:2001:db8 and by User:Knowledgekid87) that the term "Winter Storm Nemo", and I quote, "is POV". This belies a fundamental misunderstanding of our WP:NPOV policy, which asserts the need to represent all significant viewpoints on a subject, roughly in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources. It does not assert that we must exclude points of view, except on the basis that such points of view have little relative weight to the topic at hand. Hopefully the preponderance of the term "Nemo" in eminently reliable news sources dispels any such objection on grounds that the term is used only in a tiny minority of sources. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Neutral I have no problem with it as long as the other names that are being used by a wide varity of reliable sources are included as well, right now the name "winter storm Nemo" is contested not only here but in the media and by Meterologists alike so having that alone as the aka name is the POV problem. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Neutral - I don't like it, but Sławomir Biały has a point when it comes to people wondering if it was the right article. United States Man (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• Neutral (but oppose the ordering) We had a compromise previously where both names were included in the lede, and the name section moved to the bottom, though that disappeared as others were unhappy with it. The reasons for "Winter Storm Nemo" being POV are described by User:Knowledgekid87 above. However, looking at the traffic stats now, it's apparent that we ARE getting a significant number of views/searches through "Nemo"; that definitely sways me from opposing inclusion. However, I think Blizzard of 2013 should precede Winter Storm Nemo, as it's more neutral, and both are widely used in the media. I agree with the point that readers need to know that this is the "Nemo" article since, whether or not I like it, it has become a popular nickname...which the prior compromise accomplished, but now with "Names" still at the bottom, it is indeed unclear again. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support per User: Slawomir Bialy. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I'm going to revert myself as consensus seems to be going towards support or no opinion, but swap the names as that was the version we had after the prior compromise, and per reasoning given above. (And since my removal was based on there not having been discussion, but there was, with the aliased username throwing me off.) It would be helpful to know if any other editors have an opinion on the ordering. Or just feel free to nuke the names again... – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support for Nemo - But not for Blizzard of 2013, which is a generic, unspecific title that serves no purpose other than confusion. Nemo must be included, by virtue of its notoriety. “Blizzard of 2013” simply cannot be included. To do so would be a travesty. What if there are worse or more blizzards this year? It simply isn’t feasible. RGloucester (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what YOU think about the name. The way you carry on about Nemo makes me think that you probably work for TWC. Your statement "“Blizzard of 2013” simply cannot be included. To do so would be a travesty." is nonsense. We're not going to exclude a widely used name such as Blizzard of 2013 just to suit you. It is as widely used, if not more, than Nemo. To not include it would be a travesty. United States Man (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Also note that the "Blizzard of 2013" name didn't get that much use until the storm actually *was* a blizzard, which didn't happen until it was already hitting New England fairly hard. Several Boston-area media outlets only started calling it the "Blizzard of 2013" after that happened, for example. There are, of course, thousands of articles that you'll easily find on a search that refer to the "Blizzard of 2013" with that specific capitalization. If there are more blizzards, we'll simply see what names the media are using for those ones. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 01:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It is not as widely used as Nemo, as the Wikipedia traffic stats I posted above in the move debate show. You can look there for that. As far as TWC is concerned, I think not. They wouldn’t take me if I wanted to work there, as I’m rather an introvert by nature. Broadcasting, business, &c. lend themselves to extroverts. I’m also somewhat of a socialist with a disdain for private business. Now that that is taken care of, one can move on. It isn’t to suit me. “Blizzard of 2013” is a confusing title, by its nature. If it can be avoided, it should, to avoid misinformation. It can be mentioned, of course, as it should be. But it should not be bolded. I previously mentioned Evelyn Nesbit. Her page says the following " Nesbit achieved world-wide notoriety when her jealous husband, multi-millionaire Harry Kendall Thaw, shot and murdered Stanford White on the rooftop theatre of Madison Square Garden on the evening of June 25, 1906, leading to what the press would call “The Trial of the Century”. I think may do something similar with “Blizzard of 2013”. We could say: “the ensuing chaos brought by the storm led it to be labeled the “Blizzard of 2013” in parts of the press”. Or some such thing. RGloucester (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Traffic stats are driven by what the popular initial name is, and it's not in question that "Nemo" was indeed a popular name among the general public, and one that caught on early. But you also need to look at what reliable sources called it, since Wikipedia is based on those reliable sources...which, just based on my observations of Boston-area media (notable since that was the largest metro area to be heavily affected), was much more towards "Blizzard of 2013" or "Blizzard 2013" once it actually was a blizzard. That skews the numbers, due to responsible meteorologists actually waiting until the blizzard was a blizzard before calling it a blizzard, with many using generic names or a nickname like "Nemo" before that. Of course, a proper analysis to determine usage over time is way beyond the scope of this argument, but I don't think anything more needs to be shown than that lots of media outlets called it the "Blizzard of 2013." It doesn't need to be "as widely used as Nemo" (which doesn't mean much for the reasons given), just widely used in general. Which a quick search will show you is the case. (And the comparison to "Trial of the Century" doesn't seem that great, since a one-year span is very different from a 100-year span; again, if another blizzard occurs this year, we'll see what happens with the media.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support The names are in wide enough use to be mentioned in the lead, though we should make it clear that calling the storm "Nemo" was TWC's idea. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support we do this for every kind of article on Wikipedia. Why not here? Hot Stop (Talk) 13:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. I have gone ahead and restored the two names to the lead. Someone recently had removed them (for a second time) without supplying a very informative edit summary. This edit however left an inline comment suggesting that the material would be acceptable if it had references, so presumably the editor in question is now satisfied that the alternative names belong in the lead. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC) Disclosure: I have invited the editor in question to participate in this RfC.

As said editor, I am happy with the solution. United States Man (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support both. Nobody seems to be using the name "February 2013 nor'easter" anyway, I usually hear it referred to as "blizzard of 2013" or "Winter Storm Nemo". RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support these names have been used quite frequently and deserve a place in the article. Camyoung54 talk 21:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• Close discussion I see a pretty solid consensus here and the material has been readded to the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Official naming

It is bizarre that officialdom objects to naming big, distinct, important storms. Calling this one "The Blizzard of 2013" as opposed to something like "Nemo" is potentially dumb -- what if there is a bigger blizzard next week, next month, or in December?

How does NWS refer to this storm internally, now? In the future, afterwards, in retrospect? Should the articles include such information?-96.237.4.73 (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Blizzards are not very common, and have a strict definition. There was a December blizzard, or at least an article by that title, for 2010, December 2010 North American blizzard, and if there is a blizzard in December 2013, it can also be called the December 2013 North American blizzard. December blizzards are even less common. Apteva (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Apteva. If there is a second 2013 blizzard, then namings can be adjusted then. For now, it is already known as the "blizzard of 2013". Just check any news source other than TWC. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that, of the five citations given for the name "Winter Storm Nemo," one is The Weather Channel (who named it), two (MSNBC and CNBC) are from networks owned by the same company that oens The Weather Channel, and the other two only use "Nemo" in headlines or headings. Trivialist (talk) 12:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

All of which are reliable sources. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

No, my point was that The Weather Channel, MSNBC, and CNBC have a vested interest in using the name, and the other uses were basically as headlinese. Trivialist (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm ok with switching the names. I don't really care one way or the other about the TWC "branding", but if it rubs some editors the wrong way I'm fine with giving the descriptive names priority. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The most common name should be listed first. Who originally came up with a name is irrelevant. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Have you had a problem at creating redirects from Nemo to this article? μηδείς (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

How are redirects relevant to this discussion? Rreagan007 (talk) 00:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

As relevant as people are quoting why the storms were named in the first place and the alleged reasoning behind it. There is no relevance. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)