Talk:Mid-February 2014 North American winter storm

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

Winter Storm Pax?[edit]

If this term redirects here, shouldn't it be mentioned someplace on the page (if not the lead)? Tinton5 (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The term is something the Weather Channel started and is promoting. For this reason, @Floydian: feels it is promotional and a neutrality issue.[1] (They refer me to a "talk page" for on-going discussion, but I don't see where that is.)
IMO, we need to make it clear that anyone searching for "Winter Storm Pax" got to the right article. WP:R#PLA seems to confirm this. While some names are legitimately POV, we bold and link those (see all of the accusatory and apologetic names at Naming the American Civil War. This one, however, does not promote a point of view: the storm was crippling, the storm was hyped for whatever reason, the storm was caused by... whatever. None of these ideas (or anything similar) are encoded in "Winter Storm Pax" in any way that I can find.
Is it "promotional"? Sure: the Weather Channel is promoting the idea that they should be able to assign names to winter storms. To be clear here, no none is suggesting renaming the article, only that the term IS being used by some people, this article is the appropriate target and those arriving at this article should know they've found the right article. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
So it should go in the body, clearly labelled as an unaccepted naming by one lone channel. It is WP:UNDUE weight to stick it in the lede because one source has decided "we're naming them, like it or lump it". It is nonsensical to say readers need to see it in the lede to know they've arrived on the right article - the fact that they were redirected is enough, and the hatnote that appears on the target page when you are redirected adds additional information. We should not be bolding terms used by one source when dozens of sources have condemned the practise. I thought this page was the one with the discussion, but it's one of the other 50 useless articles on winter storms that we have for this year where that has happened. We don't need to validate The Weather Channel's wrongful and shameless self-promotion by acknowledging their names. This isn't a weather agency, it's a TV station. Note the line in WP:R#PLA: But insignificant or minor redirects can skip this (emphasis mine) - Floydian τ ¢ 00:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Tinton if the name was not being used for promotion then it would be acceptable, nobody can argue against this being a winter storm but can argue against the name usage per WP:UNDUE - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I couldn't find the talk page you meant. The article you linked to has numerous topics and I haven't the patience. February 2013 nor'easter, after substantial, heated debate, was not moved to Winter Storm Nemo, but the title is in the lede, bolded. (See Talk:February 2013 nor'easter/Archive 2.) I've raised the issue at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Meteorology#Names_of_winter_storms to hopefully find a solid consensus. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
You should try to make your request for commentary a little less opinionated and just stick to "a discussion about ____ is take place at _____, you input is appreciated..." but otherwise, I appreciate a larger input. Floydian τ ¢ 09:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
My local paper called the storm "Pax" (I'm reluctant to provide a link because they charge if you read too many of their articles, but I may be able to find a way). The local radio station has a national DJ who tells us each time The Weather Channel has named a new storm. He said this morning we were up to Q. I found a source that says R.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Meteorological History[edit]

Can someone please add a section detailing the Meteorological history of this system? Most of the other winter storm articles have one, and it would be really nice to know just how this storm developed, and what it did during its duration. LightandDark2000 (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


I am confused by some of these dates. The date in the infobox conflicts with the article title; is there a reason for this? It is also inconsistent with the WPC storm dates here; I can't really connect the storm in this article to the any of of the WPC dates. Dustin talk 00:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mid-February 2014 North American winter storm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)