Talk:Winter storm naming in the United States

Bawbag

Why is Bawbag included here? There is really not relation between this and TWC incident. Furthermore, the article is wrong. Bawbag was in December 2011, not January 2012. If this article does survive, I think that needs to be removed. RGloucester (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking the name thing and while the section does give this article a worldwide aspect the main focus should be the Weather channel controversy to do that though I think the article's name should be changed as just the name "Winter storm naming controversy" can imply to not just the USA. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't care either way. We can have it as TWC controversy, or both in plural.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Since the info reguarding Bawbag has been removed why is the POV tag still up? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Cuz tags are free and some editors like using them. I think it is balanced with opposition to TWC and countering material from TWC et al.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The article trumps up the authority of the NWS. RGloucester (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The NWS seems to be the authority until recently. I would assume this is not the first pissing match between them and other services. The more weight we give them now, the more egg on their face if they give in to storm naming by others.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

We shouldn't be concerned with "egg on their face". That smacks of POV, as it's clear that you think that winter storms should be named, and it seems like you're saying that this article should be used as a means of pushing for that. Inks.LWC (talk) 10:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

You are confusing POV with my sense of humour. I have been laughing at the Weather Wars, (my original title), on and off wp. This whole thing seems to be a big waste of editing and media efforts. I have never seen so many people talk about the weather with such great concern. It seems important enough to warrant an article so I created one. Many want to merge it into the TWC article with lame arguements. The other services are involved as well so should we fork the same material into the other 5 articles as and coatrack them? I had the same lame BS when I created Political gaffe. Everyone wasting editing time discussing politics instead of weather though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Except this is ALSO politics, it just happens to be weather-related politics. :) We're discussing how and where an independent organization can insert itself into naming things, and particularly how that can influence the naming of things on Wikipedia itself. (Though naming within Wikipedia fortunately isn't relevant to this particular article, since there's no outside coverage of our lame AfDs, RFCs, and so forth concerning TWC names.) Oh, and you're mistaking "usage" for "involvement." Other organizations simply using names is not the same as endorsing them or being involved with their creation or assignment... That's why NWS hurricane names are assigned to the NWS even if everyone else uses them. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 03:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I for one am glad that the article was created. I just now added the list of names (with ref)... I take no position on the weather wars, but I think that the controversy itself warrants an article, and on a separate note I think that from a stylistic sense, we ought to include the first ever list of TWC-named storms. Peace, MPS (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The whole issue is silly. There is only one authority on the matter, the National Weather Service. And they've said they do not support and will not name winter storms. And that is the end of it. TWC can call a storm whatever they want, but it carries no weight and adds no value - except possibly to their own commercial interests. I cannot believe this "article" even exists. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 08:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Name list

I agree with United States that the name list is not helpful, the list just adds un-needed clutter and a link can just as easily be easily added in the external links section. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Also agree. It's horrible clutter as it is; if it needs to be included, it can be condensed into prose format, and hopefully be moved below the coverage of the actual controversy. Right now the article is unreadable without scrolling, thus unreasonably slanted towards the long list. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 03:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

A collapsable section may be another option?--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah but then where do you put it the collapsable section? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Article title

There are suggestions that the article title needs a tweak. I don't think we need to move it again at this point although I agree that it may be changed after the AfD runs its course. If it is merged/deleted then this would be moot. Winter storm naming is one such suggestion. Any others?--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps "Winter storm naming in the United States", as this is dealing exclusively with the U.S. But I don't care one way or another on that point. But that's the only other alternative I'd think would be potentially appropriate. I do agree that we should wait until the AfD is over, though. Inks.LWC (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Moved. The page has been moved from "Winter storm naming controversy" to "Winter storm naming". There was some discussion in the AfD. The content is still focused on controversy surrounding TWC and needs to be generalized. AHeneen (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Have you considered Extratropical cyclone naming which would enable the article to be internationalised and encompass European windstorms, the American storms (Nor'easters, Witches and Clippers etc...though probably not the lake effect events) and those found elsewhere. Also it would allow perhaps a comparison between the regulated tropical storm naming situations and the extratropical storms, should that be desired. "Winter storms" seems somewhat too generic.Lacunae (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

After watching this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30442509), I wonder if this article could be transitioned into one about meteorological communication or some such topic, given that there is some controversy about the way in which meteorology is communicated, with terms such as weather bomb, bombogenesis, polar vortex, atmospheric river, and the winter storm naming etc... being regarded as sensationalist, scare-mongering, dumbing down, or just scientifically inaccurate in some quarters, or helpful, less elitist and informative by others. This could be an adjunct to articles on climate change/global warming and more global in outlook.Lacunae (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to note some of the uses of the twitter hashtag were in parody...

...but it's been removed a couple times. Is there a reason we can't note that? It's obvious a good number were: [1] [2], and others. At the very least, we can note that some of the Twitter references were to Finding Nemo rather than the storm. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 05:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The source states that he searched 'nemo' not "#nemo'. He may mention hash tags but doesn't state he searched under a hash tag nor did the source state what type of hits he got. I gave up reverting it to match the source. Someone else may wish to as it seems you have more time to edit war than I do.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

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) 19:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

If you can find a source as to what others use to keep track of smaller storms then we may be able to include it. I think they should all be named Canoe 1, Canoe 2, Canoe 3, etc. They should skip Canoe 1967 out of respect though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I have heard of, but not seen, reports of various NWS naming winter storms in direct contradiction to the official national office line. I include a link to Bufallo where they have a long history of naming lake effect storms (and even rating them 1..5 in honor of Fujita and Safir-Simpson). The other location would possibly be in the North plains .. ND,SD,MN. see 208.185.19.106 (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC) http://www.erh.noaa.gov/buf/lakepage.php

That is strange. They are naming storms even though they disagree with others naming them when smaller than typhoon/hurricane ratings. You cound mention that in the article with that source.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The Buffalo National Weather Service (NWS BUF) office has internally named lake effect snowstorms for many years now in order to make it easier for them to keep track of them in hindsight mostly for research purposes, and Tom Niziol (long-time NWS BUF meteorologist, now at The Weather Channel) was a part of this recent Weather Channel (TWC) exercise in naming winter storms ahead of time. [3] It might be worthwhile to mention this in the article, but this exercise by TWC might not stand the test of time anyways...who knows... Guy1890 (talk) 02:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

References

February 18, 2013, edits by Knowledgekid87

Resolved

 – Knowledgekid87 has voluntarily removed the section as requested and the lead has been reverted until a better version is agreed upon. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I have just looked at the edits made today by Knowledgekid87. While I have no doubt that KK87's intentions were very admirable, I think the edits turned a well-written and logically-arranged article into a very confusing one. My two primary concerns are: (1) The lead severely lacks clarity and uses very poor grammar; it's now simply a vague ("for awhile"), difficult-to-understand, run-on sentence, and (2) The just-added "Hurricane Brawbag" section appears to be totally irrelevant to the article's subject; obviously, Brawbag is a hurricane and not a winter storm in the context of the article. This article is about named winter storms, such as Winter Storm Athena and Winter Storm Nemo, is it not? I feel that the Brawbag content should be removed completely. But even if it were determined to be relevant, it certainly doesn't warrant being the first section. IMHO, this version of the article, prior to KK87's edits today, was excellent. In particular, the lead was extremely well-written because it clearly explained to readers what winter storm naming is, how it came into existence, and that it is controversial. I would strongly suggest reverting all of KK87's good faith edits and return it to the prior version. I feel that whatever expansion and improvements are needed should emanate from that prior version, not the current one. Btw, I am aware of the recently-closed AfD. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

With a name like Winter storm naming the article needs more of a broad worldwide scope and can not just focus on the Weather Channel which is based in the United States. You are free to edit the lead as you please but keep this in mind. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

KK87, thank you for your flexibility with regard to the lead. However, you didn't address my thoughts on the Brawbag content, so I'm not sure how you feel bout that particular issue. Why did you add content about that hurricane, when this article is about winter storm (not hurricane) naming? With regard to your comment that "the article needs more of a broad worldwide scope and can not just focus on the Weather Channel which is based in the United States", was there consensus about that? Or is that your opinion? If there was consensus, can you please tell me where it is? The reason I ask is because my understanding is that winter storm naming in the context of this article refers solely to the controversial system created by The Weather Channel. I am not aware of any other winter storm naming system (not hurricane name or tropical storm naming, etc.). If I am wrong about this, can you please provide a reliable source for it? I'd be really interested in comparing it to the TWC model. Also, keep in mind that there are thousands of articles that focus on subjects isolated to a single country, which of course is totally appropriate and expected. I also see that someone moved the article from Winter storm naming controversy to Winter storm naming just yesterday, yet don't know where the consensus for that change is. In any case, I just wanted to express my thoughts on the article. To prevent any appearance of bias, I will not be making any changes to the content. I will leave that up to other editors. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

If the title was changed to Winter storm naming in the United States then yes it would just be for The Weather Channel, see also though: Wikipedia:Systemic bias, people from all over the world use wikipedia. So if someone lets say from the United Kingdom or Japan sees the title "Winter storm naming" one could think "Okay Winter storm naming where?" - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, I feel that you are unintentionally missing the point and therefore misapplying the issue of bias. (Also, WP:BIAS is merely an essay; which is simply the opinions of its author(s) and not a policy or even a guideline.) Winter storm naming is TWC's system, whether the title had United States in it or not. There is no other winter storm naming system in the world (that I'm aware of). Who else uses a winter storm naming system other than TWC? I specifically addressed and asked you about this in my prior post. I also asked you twice why the Brawbag hurricane content is included in an article that is solely about winter storm (not hurricane) naming? So your reply to these important issues would be appreciated. For the record, I believe the former title name, Winter storm naming controversy, was much more apt because it obviously referred solely to TWC's controversial system; the only one that, I assume, exists in the world. Thanks. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that KK87 removed all the Brawbug content. Thanks, I appreciate your friendly participation in this matter! :) However, I feel the article should be returned to the version prior to KK87's edits, then improved from there. The lead is still very inadequate from a grammar standpoint and doesn't give the great detailed explanation of the subject's origin, as the prior lead did. Thanks.--76.189.111.199 (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Other organizations across the world name low and high pressure systems. As you alluded to, however, The Weather Channel names winter storms solely. That being said, I do believe it would be more helpful to revert back. While Knowledgekid87's edits certainly were in good faith, they have created confusion and took away the history of naming storms that would be helpful to the reader. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Tropical. My understanding is the same as yours - that there are naming systems around the world for other kinds of weather events, but that TWC is the only organization that does it specifically for winter storms. Thanks for verifying that. Also, the current lead (KK87's version that I feel should be reverted) claims that winter storm naming has existed in the U.S. and other countries for decades. Where is the proof for that statement? As I said (and Tropical seems to confirm), I see no evidence that winter storm naming (not hurricane or tropical storm naming, etc.) exists in other countries, nor that the system has existed for decades. Unless I'm missing it, I don't see that anywhere in the article. I truly believe it's best for the article to revert it back to the version prior to KK87's edits. Thanks. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 23:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you, 76.189.111.199, that the current lead is inaccurate and should be reverted. Star767 (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

This thread was split into the section below to prevent confusion and because two key issues were resolved at this point. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

What is the specific purpose of this article?

This section was split from the section above and is intended to focus on the unresolved issue of defining this article's purpose. Based on the article creator's (Canoe1967) first edit summary, it appears that his intention was for this article to specifically be about The Weather Channel's winter storm naming system. As the article stands now, it has a much more general, undefined purpose, which I believe will surely lead to edit wars due to the lack of clarity. Therefore, can we please determine what this article is about and, more to the point, what defines a winter storm? Or should we simply change the article title to reflect that it's solely about TWC's winter storm naming? --76.189.111.199 (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I was the one who renamed the page, in line with the AfD. The purpose is that this page should reflect a global view, not just the current TWC practice. Check out this link for global usage.

1. European windstorms have been named for decades. Despite the name wind storms, they are strong extratropical cyclones which primarily occur during winter months. IBTimes: "In Europe, winter storms have been named since the 1950's." (reference to European windstorms)
2. Despite the National Weather Service opposing TWCs names, the NWS office in Buffalo gives names to significant lake-effect snowstorms. I can't find a list of names, but see these examples: Lake Effect Storm Argon & Effect Storm Daisy.
3. On the first page of a Google search for "winter storm names" is FOX11-WLUK in Green Bay, which "has been naming winter storms since at least the mid-1980s" (List of names 2012-13).

Seems to me like there's enough content out there to get this page focused on the practice of naming winter storms in general, even though a large section of this page will relate to what TWC is doing. AHeneen (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Bawbag should be readded as it falls under the category of a winter storm (having produced snow in parts of Europe). It doesn't matter if its primary impacts weren't snow. And, on a side note, I agree with AHeneen 100% on all of his points. United States Man (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, AHeneen. You said, "I was the one who renamed the page, in line with the AfD". However, the comment by the AfD's closing admin was "The result was keep. without prejudice to a rename". So while there was certainly a decision to keep the article I couldn't find any consensus to change the article title. "Without prejudice", to my understanding, means if a proper discussion results in consensus. The AfD was only about keeping or deleting the article, not about a title change. With regard to European windstorms, that article actually reinforces my point about there being many subjects that are isolated to a paricular area of the world. Your example of the Buffalo NWS office is not applicable because, as you explained, that naming system is solely for lake-effect storms, not specifically winter storms. And they even name them all with the words "lake effect" included. and the The Green Bay station naming winter storms are is good. That is content that can certainly be incorporated into this article. But it must be presented with due weight to reflect that while a couple small, isolated organization (Buffalo NWS and WLUK in Green Bay) a small TV station in Green Bay created a similar system years ago, it was TWC's national system that clearly made the subject prominent. After all, without TWC's winter storm naming system, this article would never have existed. In any case, this article needs a well-written lead that clearly and concisely explains the origins of winter storm naming and the substantial role that TWC has had in the use of this system. Relatively speaking, I'm sure no one outside of Buffalo and Green Bay knew those that systems ever existed, but now the entire country knows of TWC's system. Therefore, it is TWC that made winter storm naming notable. ;) I hope the article can be developed in a way where its purpose defined and all content will align with that purpose. Thanks again for the information. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi U.S. Man. You said, "Bawbag should be readded as it falls under the category of a winter storm". I have to strongly (but pleasantly) disagree. The name of that article is Hurricane Bawbag because it's precisely that, a hurricane. It wasn't named as a winter storm. It was named as a hurricane. This article is specifically isolated to winter storm naming only. Once we start adding hurricanes, or any other weather events, that happened to occur during the winter, it will throw this article into chaos. ;) --76.189.111.199 (talk) 00:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there's the problem of what is a winter storm.

Is there comparable information regarding winter storms in the US to put in the European windstorms article? It seems to be a very general article. Are the bad winter storms confined to those with snow, or is it any bad storm in the winter?

One of the problems, according to the Weather Service, is that the US covers a larger land mass than Europe. Would a bad storm in Seattle, Washington count? In Omaha, Nebraska? In Minneapolis, Minnesota? Those in Canada?

Also, how about those in Baja California, Central and South America? Australia, Russia, etc.? Could you point me to where this information is? (The hurricane people take care of all this for Tropical cyclones. Maybe we should get their input?) Star767 (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

If it can be proven other winter storm naming systems existed before TWC's, then instead of opening the article (lead) with text like, "Winter storm naming in the United States began with The Weather Channel...", how about saying (per AHeneen's info) something like, "Although winter storm naming existed in a few isolated parts of the U.S. several decades earlier, it was the Weather Channel that made the system prominent and caused controversy...." Then, in the body, there can be refernce to the Green Bay station (and any others) that used localized winter storm naming systems before the TWC developed their prominent national one. Please understand that my text is just a very quick, rough draft simply to give you an idea of what I'm suggesting. A good writer can develop it (since I'm not going to make any content changes to the article). 76.189.111.199 (talk) 00:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Star767, great question! (What is a winter storm?) And one that must be answered if this article is to have any credibility. TWC always names winter storms with the words "winter storm" included - such as "Winter Storm Athena" and "Winter Storm Nemo") - correct? But it seems clear to me that if an organization is going to classify a named storm as something else - hurricane, tropical storm, etc. - then it can not also be a winter storm in the context of this article (and how TWC names them). Just my thoughts. Again, we need to define the precise purpose of this article. It would be nice to hear from Canoe1967 on this since he is the article's creator. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Per my questions above, I think its impossible to include the "world". Europe is an isolated place and that article contains little information helpful to us. Lake effect storms are not really "named winter storms" but refer to the disproportionate snowfall caused by the Great Lakes. They are essentially huge "snow" events, not necessarily including wind, etc. (Naming "Lake Effect" storms seems to violate NWS policy of not naming winter storms.) Surely we don't want an article listing every idiosyncratic practice in the US. And what about the rest of the world? Somewhere it said that the NWS objected to naming "blizzards" - so what counts and how much of the world will this article cover? Star767 (talk) 01:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, I agree with Star's great comments. Editors must define the precise purpose of this article. What qualifies as a winter storm? Without answering those questions, this article is setting itself up for unnecessary edit-warring. As I said earlier, this article is specifically isolated to winter storm naming only. I believe that once we start adding hurricanes, tropical storms, or any other weather events that happened to occur during the winter, it will throw this article into chaos. Btw, if you look at the very first edit summary in the article, it's clear that Canoe1967 created the article solely because of TWC's naming system. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

As you can see by the article, what is Winter all depends on where you live. Britain doesn't exactly match up with the US, and Scandinavian countries don't match Britain. So ..., I think any article on "winter storm naming" probably should be localized. Star767 (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Or, it should be renamed to reflect the creator's intent, which was to have an article about TWC's winter storm warning system. Simple fix. It passes the notability test. How about moving the article to "The Weather Channel winter storm naming"? That would guarantee that there would never be any confusion about the article's purpose. What do you think? I should mention, though, that I'm not even sure why this article was created because this section already exists at The Weather Channel. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 02:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

If that's the case, then this article shouldn't be a separate article, and it should just be redirected to the TWC article. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

TWC vs TheWeatherSpace.com

Naming storms came from my work way before TWC. The first in the USA to name them and I have proof, is MY work, not theirs. I do not want this article stating TWC is the first in the USA to name Winter Storms because that is 100% false. I've been pre-naming them BEFORE they hit days in advance for many many years and appeared on Los Angeles news as such ... TWC does not have my credit one bit and this article needs to reflect my credit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.69.162 (talk) 00:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't believe Wikipedia actually allows this to occur. I'd rather just see this whole page deleted because of Kevin. 174.49.34.25 (talk) 02:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I just scanned the article, and it seems rather TWC-centric. I assume that is because most of the sources were after a lot more stories on the matter began to be published in multiple media sources after 2011.

However, if you or anyone has a number of good reliable sources, preferably secondary sources, and will compile a few of them here on this Talk page, just ping me on my Talk page and I'd be happy to help write a History section for this article that correctly covers the origin of the practice and by whom. But since Wikipedia doesn't deal in original research, it won't be sufficient merely for named editors, or IP editors, to make claims on this Talk page to get the article changed. If you have good secondary sources, put them here, and other editors can help improve the article. N2e (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Continue Reverting

I will continue reverting until I get proper credit that my work is the first in the United States to name Winter Storms. I gave SOLID proof of the winter storm names. You can CLICK HERE as well and see this. TWC will NOT be credited for my work ... ever. I want admins/mods to keep what I wrote as it is the absolute FACT about Winter Storm Naming ...

Admin Help With Major Change

Hi, my name is Joshua. I saw the edit-war with who named winter storms first in the United States. Winter Storm Naming did not come from The Weather Channel. Winter Storm Naming came from a weather guy named Kevin Martin. I am one of many thousands of people on his websites and Facebook pages. Kevin Martin has done this since 1999. When The Weather Channel posted they would do it, he showed proof to everyone that he was first. I find it non-factual that this article names The Weather Channel first and ask that an admin or moderator look at the link I provide that clearly shows he did this first.

This line here - "Winter storm naming in the United States began with The Weather Channel (TWC) in 2011, when the cable network informally used the previously-dubbed name "Snowtober" for an October nor'easter in 2011"

This is wrong, because Winter Storm Naming in the United States began in Southern California with Kevin Martin's work.

The wayback machine on this is from 2006. Click Here For Proof.

Kevin Martin is the owner of TheWeatherSpace.com, a national weather network. He had a site called OWSweather.com which turned to Southern California Weather Authority a couple years back.

Here is more proof of the Winter Storm Names back as far as 2005! Click Here

So for fact purposes and credit I think we need to change this article to reflect The Weather Channel is not the first to do this in the United States. Some did this further back than Martin, but that was after the storms had came and went. Martin is the one that first named them before hitting metro areas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaYoungWX (talk • contribs) 20:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I added it with the source.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

There are a number of things surrounding this. Although Ontario Weather Service first published it, the original author's name is Meteorologist Kevin Martin, whom is now with TheWeatherSpace.com. TheWeatherSpace.com was naming storms last year last I recalled. The article 'should' reflect the name Meteorologist Kevin Martin, who is a private meteorologist with TheWeatherSpace.com now. Ontario Weather Service does not exist anymore and he's named them with TheWeatherSpace.com last year.

Here is another article from Kevin Martin, whom seemed real upset on his credit. Click Here to View - JoshuaYoungWX (talk) 20:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Proper Name for top paragraph

You have Ontario Weather Service as the name. Ontario Weather Service no longer exists. The owner of Ontario Weather Service was Meteorologist Kevin Martin. He now owns Southern California Weather Authority.com and TheWeatherSpace.com. He is naming Pacific Storms this season but here is his story when he divised the name. Click Here

Change? I think you need to credit the person not his old site. Please change Ontario Weather Service to Meteorologist Kevin Martin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaYoungWX (talk • contribs) 18:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

2013 List

My personal feelings aside, I added the list of the 2013/14 Winter Storm Names from TWC in the External Links. I pay so little attention to the weather that I was not even aware of this practice or the kerfluffle about it until yesterday. While I think it's ridiculous, my personal feelings are not at issue here. It is an event that warrants mention on Wikipedia. I'm curious but have not looked into what public opinion was when the powers that be decided to begin naming hurricanes using a predetermined list of names with certain criteria that outlined what would warrant naming a storm. It is my understanding that that is something that only came about in the 1950s if I remember correctly? I wonder if the controversy & backlash was the same? New practices do not always come easy. Right now it seems that most public opinion is negative about the practice but who knows, in ten years, it may all be different. And in all honesty, is it really anything to get upset over? Do I think it's silly? Yes. Will I say so to TWC? Probably. But, will I get angry at people on Wikipedia because they do not agree with me? No. It's not worth my time, or energy to get angry over. There are things that are more deserving of public outrage than a company doing what companies do...find ways to make money and keep their name on the lips and minds of the public. Attributed to P.T. Barnum is the quote "There's no such thing as bad publicity", although it's not proven he did say that. And Oscar Wilde is famous for saying, "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about." So, whether one thinks naming winter storms is silly (or whatever other negative feeling one has about it) or whether one thinks it is genius doesn't do much beyond accomplish what TWC wanted...to keep their name on the minds and lips of the public! WayneyP (talk) 12:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I moved the list of storms to be a mention in the paragraph to avoid promotion as the names are not official. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind that there may be a copyright problem in using the entire list verbatim. RJaguar3 | u | t 19:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

WFSB Naming Winter Storms Since 1971

This article seems to indicate that the naming of winter storms began relatively recently, but this is not the case. WFSB, the Connecticut CBS affiliate, has been naming winter storms impacting Connecticut since 1971 when they were owned by Travelers Insurance and their forecasts were provided by the Travelers Weather Service. See last two paragraphs here 75.17.35.212 (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

USPS uses TWC's name for 26-27 January 2015 storm

The United States Postal System (USPS) used TWC's name, Juno, for the storm that hit the northeastern US 26-27 January 2015 in its (USPS's) service alert on its web site about the storm's disruption of the mail. Perhaps this should be noted in the article, especially as the article indicates that other US government agencies have opposed use of these names. (For what it's worth, my sympathies are entirely with those who oppose use of these names, but my comment is only about the possible inclusion of the fact that the USPS used such a storm name.) DMR5713 (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Why?

Is there more information that could be added to the article as to exactly why the officials are so opposed to this? All I see are a lot of vague claims about the practice being "self-serving" and "potentially misleading." But why is it misleading and why do the problems outweigh the potential benefits of it? And how is it so different from naming hurricanes so as to not be a good idea? ProfessorTofty (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Good question. I'd like to see that too. And if not, it would seem that we might improve the article by consolidating the various (cited) criticisms into a section entitled Criticism or Controversy, per this guideline. It does seem that "winter storm naming" seems simply to be a thing now, it is being done, and has been for a while, and the criticism should not be the main thing in a Wikipedia article on the topic. N2e (talk) 00:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

And another question might be: just exactly what is the government role in such things, given the basic political economy of the United States? Is there any law restricting the speech of TV networks and media outlets that would prevent them from calling these storms anything they might want to call them? If not, then while the US government's weather service is certainly free to take any position it cares to on what US government employees call such storms, there is no reason whatsoever that Wikipedia articles should take a POV position on the matter, giving any particularly large weight to criticism of the main/titular subject of this article. (See WP:CRITICISM.) Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Tropical storm naming conventions are determined in advance. Whether a storm gets a name is based on pre-determined criteria and actual observations. Weather channel marketing names are not based on observations, or set weather criteria. They are based on Weather Channel forecasts and whether the Weather Channel predicts a significant effect on their viewers. Advertising, not science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The Weather Channel has no authority to name any storm. It's just a fact. The National Weather Service, however, does. TWC is a for-profit commercial entity that serves it's shareholders. The National Weather Service serves all citizens of the United States, and has a mandate to do so by law. Therefore, it's silly to argue. The National Weather Service says no to winter storm names, and that is the end of the matter. Since these storms are just cold fronts, and have no center, etc. (unlike hurricanes) - it's impossible to say where a winter storm "is" - much less what to call "it". It is nothing more than a moving mass of cold air across a wide area. Inherently, it is not a "nameable" entity - since it is spread out all over the place. That's just common sense. The fact that some storms have been named on a more localized level in the past has no bearing on the topic under discussion, and changes nothing. One can call a storm anything - but it will never be "official". 98.194.39.86 (talk) 08:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

List of names

@Typhoon2013: So my reasons for removing the list of names are as follows:

1. I agree with the previous concerns raised on this talk page that the entire list of names is trivial, creates clutter, and is not very helpful to readers of an encyclopedia.
2. The fact that the list of 26 names creatively selected by The Weather Channel creates copyright issues under WP:TOP100 is additional grounds against the list's inclusion.
3. A limited list of examples of the names, referenced to reliable sources, already appears in the article.

Thanks, RJaguar3 | u | t 11:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@RJaguar3: Ok, thanks for your reasons. I decided to put that like two years ago was because to link it to its own articles. For example, as I did to my recent edit (which I think you reverted again), I linked Jonas to the 2016 Blizzard. Also in the blizzard article, it does link the Winter storm naming article and mentioned its unofficial winter storm name. I know it's unofficial but maybe a debate or minor consensus can be done for this? Typhoon2013 (talk) 11:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I would also be against inclusion, the notable storms can easily be placed into prose. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: Otherwise we change the setup? I guess? But we do keep the list of names in the Winter storm naming in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Typhoon2013 (talk) 03:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I would focus on this article, what is going to happen when TWC releases next year's names? 2015–16 North American winter pretty much covers the names that were notable enough for a splash in the news so I think this article should focus on naming as a whole. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Sources

Here are two sources I found for anyone to incorporate into the article:

• Liam Stack, "Meet Jonas, Part Storm, Part Marketing Ploy", The New York Times, Jan. 21, 2016
• "Latin Club Helps Weather Channel Name Winter Storms", NPR, Oct. 15, 2015

Thanks, RJaguar3 | u | t 21:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Winter storm naming in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130210192419/http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/02/09/182543/weather-channel-finding-nemo-is.html to http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/02/09/182543/weather-channel-finding-nemo-is.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)