Talk:Winter of 2009–10 in Europe/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Merging sections?

I think some of the sections should be re-merged as they're incredibly short. When I was originally writing this article I deliberately grouped together some of the days where there was less information (eg, 17-18 December, 24-28 December) so that the sections would be a decent size. It doesn't seem necessary to me to have a heading for each day, 16 December being a classic example where there are just two lines of prose. Any thoughts? TheRetroGuy (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Old refs

We've lost a few useful refs during the re-write so I'm provigind a link to an earlier version (mainly to keep track of articles I've already searched out). [1] TheRetroGuy (talk) 23:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

And on the flipside

  • In Bulgaria it seems to be unseasonably warm. Nanonic (talk) 12:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh, dear, that'll curdle the yogurt. I saw a thing on the BBC that showed a warm patch over the middle east atm - Bulgaria could be getting the edge of it. Totnesmartin (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Yep. Gulf Stream is further south than normal, bringing warm, moist westerly air flow to the south of Europe and cold, dry easterly air flow to the north. Jolly Ω Janner 16:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Not the gulf stream but the jetstream. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
    • actually Gulf Stream is correct. Simply south (talk) 13:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Both? Not sure how you define Gulf Stream, but I don't think there's much change in ocean currents. It's the air currents way up in the air that's changed their normal path. Jolly Ω Janner 15:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

Winter of 2009–10 in Europe/Archive 2
File:Satellite image of snow-covered Great Britain on 7 January 2010.jpg
Satellite photo of GB
Starting date10 December 2003
Thawing date4 February 2004
Region affectedEurope
Effects
Number of deaths150
Number of injuries2,000
Economic cost£4 billion
Records

The infobox doesn't seem very appropriate. It's more suitable for a single polar low or American "nor'easter". This is an article about a whole season. I think we should together build a new infobox. It could be used in many other articles, too: 1946-47, 1962-63 and 1990-91. Jolly Ω Janner 23:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe something like the infobox used in the PTS seasons?.Jason Rees (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that. It will certainly be a good baseline which to model the new infobox around. Jolly Ω Janner 23:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Suggestions for that prototype? Jolly Ω Janner 01:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Diary

This article is well researched but is starting to look like a diary.

2 January very cold

3 January very, very cold

4 January ice and cold

5 January ice and very cold

JB50000 (talk) 05:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT! Lugnuts (talk) 08:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree. I know I'm biassed (because I wrote most of it) but this article was much better until it was split into separate headings for each day. If nobody voices any strong objections in the next day or so, as mentioned above, I'm going to re-merge some of the sections. Certainly, 16 December isn't really necessary as it contains just two unreferenced (though accurate) lines of text, and could be merged. Not much really happened on the 17th, so that could be merged with the 18th. Some days can stand alone, eg, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 December, and 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 January. 24 December-3 January can be summarised. I mught just add that 24 December is just one line. TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, reunite them so it flows more. Right now it looks like old news reports. Totnesmartin (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • A section per day is clearer than mixing up several day's events in a tangle of "varying the expression" and "best essay style". I have re-separated 16-17-18-19 December's sections. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The sections are too small at this time, so per all the comments above I am reverting back to my edit. --Pontificalibus (talk) 22:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Only because of people snipping at them. Those sections were adequately long earlier. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Going back a couple of days I agree that they were long enough, and they were adequately referenced. Alas, whoever consolidated the information also chopped out a lot of good references. When editing of this slows down, I'll go back to my earlier version (above) and re-add some of them where necessary. TheRetroGuy (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe split it up. Weather in France. Weather in Germany. Weather in Britain. Then you will have pockets of cold weather days in Germany and can write up on that. Otherwise, we'll soon have a Bad Weather somewhere in the world, week of January 1 JB50000 (talk) 04:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Honestly

Is a day-by-day breakdown really necessary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.226.38 (talk) 06:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

What's your better suggestion, professor? Lugnuts (talk) 09:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I at least find this article unbelievably unreadable. It looks to me like an aggregation of facts and tidbits with no cohesive narrative. __meco (talk) 13:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


Yup i agree. Also, the first sentence.. (paraphrasing here) the winter of 2009-2010 in europe is a meteorological event causing one of the coldest winters in europe how can the winter be an event that causes itself ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.135.115.72 (talk) 05:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: article was renamed to Winter of 2009–2010 in Europe with more support than other names Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

December 2009 European snowfall → Winter 2009-2010 European snowfall — Has happened at the start of this year as well and looks to continue. Simply south (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It maybe a bit premature to move it just yet, but the title seems reasonable. Maybe add "Winter" in front of it. Mjroots (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Done and avoids a longer name in mind. Simply south (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Seems like a sensible idea. I was thinking it would probably need to be moved eventually, epecially as it looks like the snow and cold weather is going to continue well into January. TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
In view of the forecast, I support the move as now proposed. Mjroots (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed with above, can't really see too much point in waiting. One note though - once weather conditions return to normal, non-notable winter conditions, I don't think this article should continue to document them. Halsteadk (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree. This article should definitely end once the weather improves and the present cold snap is over. TheRetroGuy (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Support things are gonna get nasty... Jolly Ω Janner 01:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this is the first time I've ever seen every single authority in the UK with a Met Office severe weather warning. Note that the Isle of Man isn't part of the UK. I'm screenshoting this... Jolly Ω Janner 02:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This article should definitely end once the weather improves and the present cold snap is over - Which will be about April if 1962/63 is anything to go by! Mjroots (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Let's hope it isn't that long or this is gonna be a huge article. :) I guess if the cold weather does continue for several more weeks, we'll have to look at slimming it down a bit. TheRetroGuy (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Move from "...storms..."?

I think the title is misleading. The majority of notable disruption has involved snowfall and cold rather than storms. Storms imply wind damage. I think it should be moved to European winter snowfall of 2009–10 or even European winter weather of 2009–10. --Pontificalibus (talk) 10:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose — The title is not misleading at all as the snowfall has been from low pressure areas (LPAs) coming ashore from the north sea and when the LPAs have dropped their rain its been coming down as snow as it been very cold due to the cold temperatures.[2], [3].Jason Rees (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Neither of those links mentions the word "storm". A low pressure area is not the same thing as a storm. Unless there are multiple sources talking about "winter storms" or "snowstorms" being the main cause of this event then the article needs to be renamed. --Pontificalibus (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, a low pressure area is, at least in this case, most certainly the same thing as a storm. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I can assure you that it was very windy on Dartmoor on Wednesday, as a polar low moved south to France, so there was at least one snow storm in my opinion, although most of the snow up north probably wasn't storm-related. Jolly Ω Janner 22:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Thinking long term, European winter of 2009–10 or Winter of 2009–10 in Europe might be better. It would fit in with other similar articles. TheRetroGuy (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I also think European winter of 2009-10 would be better. Jolly Ω Janner 14:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I think that regardless or not of the "storms" that have occured, surely this article should be called "winter" for a wider context. This type of cold weather has been going on throughout Europe since 10 December. This is surely just one of those 1 in 20/30 year winters that are especially cold. The emphasis should be more on the winter, than the storms. Jolly Ω Janner 17:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

As this page is currently linked from the main page, might I suggest we either temporarily remove or collapse the proliferation of banners that adorn the top of the article - looks messy as hell. --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Will do. That's at least two users who don't want them. Jolly Ω Janner 16:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
(ec) You can already do that, just click hide. Simply south (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Much better - cheers! --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I have reinstated the two banners {{prose}} and {{geographical_imbalance}}. These issues have not been addressed to any degree of satisfaction, and that is deplorable. The article is very messy, and we need to mobilize editors to work on that, not masquerade the fact for the period of time when the article has a high influx of readers/potential editors. __meco (talk) 09:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Rail station unable to move, shock!

"Rail stations in Kent were delayed for up to three and a half hours, with hundreds left stranded."

Eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.91.182 (talk) 12:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Eh... any particular reason you couldn't be arsed to change that to trains instead of rail stations yourself? Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 13:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Comparisons

This article doesn't do a particularly good job of explaining why temperatures of -20C, or snowfalls of 15 - 20 centimetres, are particularly significant. I expect this is because Europe does not normally experience conditions like this, so I'd like to see some notes of what Europe does normally expect. How much snowfall, if any, can normally be expected? What's an average cold snap? Living in Canada, we expect days below -30C fairly regularly in the winter, and temperatures occasionally drop below -40C (-46.1C in my area in December), and snowfalls of 15 - 20 centimetres, while unpleasant, are not grounds for staying home from work. Obviously, given that these sorts of conditions are more commonplace here, we have the infrastructure to handle them. A country whose temperature rarely drops below, say, -4C would have a horrendous time if it dropped below -20C. A country who rarely gets any snow build-up on the roads is going to be all but shut down with 20 cm. I don't have the necessary information to add comparisons to normal European winters, but I'm hoping someone else does and agrees with me that it would improve this article. In the meanwhile, I do highly recommend tuques.  :) --Yamla (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

As a further example of comparative infrastructure, during Ottawa's record snowfall of over 4 metres in 2008 (see linked picture), three-quarters of all passenger trains arrived more than one hour late in the Ottawa corridor, but none of them broke down or were stalled and nearly all of them arrived less than two hours late (roughly 40% longer than usual). The overall on-time arrival of trains during the same winter quarter, including the Toronto-Ottawa corridor, was 53%. This was cited in the context of "We have to do better."
http://canadianimagination.blogspot.com/2008/12/snow.html
http://canadianimagination.blogspot.com/2008/06/via-rail-reliability.html
It's the coldest December across the UK since 1995 (source). Jolly Ω Janner 00:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
The Nordic countries are used to this as well so the effects are tolerable in this part of Europe. That doesn't mean we aren't sick of it but it's not that unusual. I do agree though that the article should probably explain this better but the focus seems to be on the British Isles. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 13:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
isn't there a climate of Europe - type article on WP? Totnesmartin (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Good work! Meanwhile, here's a comparison between winter in Norway and elsewhere ;) Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It might also be useful to compare with other severe winter events such as the Great Frost of 1709 & the extreme winters of 1928/29, 1939/40, 1946/47 & 1962/63 125.168.100.73 (talk) 05:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I know, I look at this too and I think "Oh no, Europe has been covered in a light dusting of snow". A little historic context would be helpful. I mean, in Canada you go out and drive to work in -10 with a sweater on and a comment like "not too bad today". --65.127.188.10 (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I remembered that I had a book which had some mention of what happened during the 1928/1929 winter, the following is a summary of that material.

The cold weather started sometime before Christmas 1928 and by late January 1929 things had become desperate.

  • The canals of the Netherlands & what was then known as the Zuiderzee were frozen as was the lower reaches of the Rhine river. All German ports were affected by ice, All ports in the Baltic were presumably completely iced in.
  • Temperatures west of a line drawn between Berlin & Vienna frequently dropped to -5ºF (-21ºc) accompanied by heavy snowfall.
  • The Danube at Vienna was frozen over for the first time since 1889 and reports from further east indicated that the river was also frozen over between Budapest and Belgrade.
  • Temperatures in Yugoslavia were reported as reaching -30ºF (-34ºC) while those in Palermo were reported as being -9ºF (-23ºC). Snow was reported in Syria with heavy frost and rain reported in Lebanon.
  • On the 29th of January, heavy snowfall and temperatures of around -35ºF (-37ºc) were reported from Timisoara.
  • The low temperatures and snowfall apparently ended sometime early in February 1929.[1]

I've been searching for online references to this but have had little luck. I'm surprized that this weather event has not been covered by Wikipedia before now. Graham1973 (talk) 13:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ E.H. Cookridge. Orient Express: The Life & Times of the World's Most Famous Train. Penguin. 1978. ISBN 0140052542

The absolute worst title ever!!!

Unless this article is covering every noteworthy event that has happened over the winter the title is misleading, it sounds as if it is covering a period of time rather than an event (i.e. the weather). It needs changing. Soon. raseaCtalk to me 23:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that months would be more assossiated with time. "Winter" is a season and I think then when most people hear "the winter of 1963" they think of the coldness of the winter. That's what winter is ussually about. We deal with is the same way for the UK's past cold winters. I think that in the long-run this winter will be remembered. Jolly Ω Janner 23:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I think that weather needs to be mentioned, or something similar. There was nothing wrong with the old title really. raseaCtalk to me 23:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes there was. As far as the UK is concerned the current event is not and never was a "storm". Leaky Caldron 23:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
The "storms" only made up a small part of the weather. The cold temperatures, ice and snowfall all occured over the course of this winter. We can therefore grouop it under "winter". Most people assume that winter implies some weather context. Jolly Ω Janner 00:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
It still needs a differentiation froma period of time such as an entire season. raseaCtalk to me 00:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Why? What's wrong with "winter"? Jolly Ω Janner 00:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I also think that wieather needs to be mentioned and that without this the article title could easily be understood to be referring to a period of time, i.e. all the things that happened in Europe during this winter. Of course it would be wonderful if we could get to the point where such an article was a reality, but that appears to be still in the future. __meco (talk) 09:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Be practical; nobody says 'winter' alone and means what the Prime Minister did; he means Winter as in snow snow snow santa claus and christmas. --94.70.94.213 (talk) 12:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what was wrong with "Winter 2009-2010 European snowfall". I can't see any discussion that resulted in it being changed to the IMHO misleading "storms" title, and from there it has now become vague and meaningless (through re-opening of an archived discussion thread, the original conclusion of which is now lost in the history). The article is surely meant to be related to NOTABLE conditions, not typical winter conditions (which are likely to include "storms" or gales). Isn't it the snowfall and cold temperatures that are notable here. Halsteadk (talk) 13:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Snowfall isn't a good title as it implies it was solely the snowfall. Hundreds of people have died because of the cold temperatures. You could argue that the cold temperatures are more notable than the snow. They can both be grouped under "winter" that's what it's associated with. If we think in the long-term of the lasting legacy of this event then winter seems better. People talk of "the winter of 1962-63" etc and not the "1962 snowfall". Jolly Ω Janner 14:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

January

I've copied over all the relevant January events (so far) to the UK/ireland article, does somebody want to be WP:BOLD and prune out excess Britishness from here? Totnesmartin (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The snow in Spain

I do not know what the BBC has reported on Jan 8th but winter snowing in Granada (Spain) is not uncommon, being that city so close to the highest mountains in the Peninsula. Elevation is some 700m.

On the other hand, Jan 10th there was light snowing in outskirts of Seville (elevation some 5m). First in some 50 years.

http://www.abcdesevilla.es/20100110/nacional-sevilla-provincia/nieve-comienza-cuajar-sierra-201001101321.html

Etaoin Shdrlu (talk) 20:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing the Sierra Nevada didn't get that name for nothing... Totnesmartin (talk) 21:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I was finding it strange that the article talks exclusively about cold weather in the north, while it's more newsworthy (IMO) when it happens in the south. First snow in Seville since 1954. I heard northern Italy was hit pretty hard just before Christmas. I don't know how rare six inches of snow is for Bologna, but it sounded like they were paralyzed, and that seems like it should be mentioned here. -Freekee (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

If there are any unseasonal wintry weather events causing notable disruption in the south or even east of Europe then don't be put off adding it to the article just because it says in the lead it's about "North Europe". Jolly Ω Janner 02:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to rename Article Winter of 2009–2010 in the United Kingdom

This is clearly an article about a newsworthy story in the UK. But very little else. It should be renamed as such.

Adding photos of Bergen in the snow or saying that the temperature in Sweden or Finland was -20c or whatever is clearly just nonsense. Bergen is always in the snow at this time of year. And it's always drops to those sort of temperatures in Scandinavia. Those are not news items nor relevant to the title of this article. Wembwandt (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

  1. A lot of this article is about places other than the UK. You clearly haven't read it all the way through. Jolly Ω Janner 14:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
  2. There is already Winter storms of 2009–2010 in Great Britain and Ireland for UK-related info only. Jolly Ω Janner 14:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not nonsense. The weather patterns are unusual as explained further up on this talk page. In addition to that, we don't judge what is or isn't relevant based on individual opinions but on what reliable sources are saying. That said, I agree that what we're seeing here in Scandinavia is not unusual but it's not trivial either. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with renaming. (Although I'm not sure to what?) It clearly is almost exclusively about the UK and mentioning the temperature in Finland or showing Zermatt in the snow is not really going to change that. But what would be a more appropriate title? The Harsh Winter of 2009/10 in the UK? Surely someone can come up with something better than that. JaneVannin (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
As explained there's already Winter storms of 2009–2010 in Great Britain and Ireland. Renaming this would be pointless. Start a merge discussion if this is what you want but I'll remind you that we do not decide what is relevant, the sources do. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
In that case we already have a duplication of content issue so I suggest instead of deciding on a new name we need to first sort out what the scope of each article is (and whether there are actually two or if one is sufficient). I oppose any renaming until this is sorted out. How can you name an article until its purpose is defined! Halsteadk (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

As a Bergen, Norway resident, I can clearly say that it is not "always in the snow at this time of year" as User:Wembwandt claims. As a matter of fact there has just barely even been snow for the last 10-20 years (if not even longer) here in the winter, and rarely "-" degrees. The state we have had now, with -10/15 degrees and thick snow laying all over for many weeks is very exeptional. Regardless, all the news on TV says it is exeptional, and links it with extreme snowfall and cold in Spain, Poland, Ukraine etc. as the same event. -TheG (talk) 15:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

  • I think that since there is such a heavy emphasis on the UK, it should go into a separate article, and this article should remain to cover the rest of Europe, so that a better weighting happens. As WP:NOTPAPER, two articles are not excessive. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
So you're saying this article shouldn't cover the UK at all? Or should cover the UK, but to an equal level to the rest of Europe? I believe the latter is what the community have been trying to do by adding more info on the rest of Europe in the past few days. By all means split off a seperate article, but I don't think it will be of good quality (see for yourself, it's not looking too good at the moment). Jolly Ω Janner 19:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm happy with the principle of 2 articles if that's what consensus decides is best (I'm not yet convinced), but in that case this one should have no more detailed UK content than any other country, duplication needs to be minimal, and a heck of a lot of material needs to be transferred to the other article. There should certainly be more in that article on the UK than this one - which is not the case by any means. Also I think the other article should cover the "British Isles" not the "UK" - for a natural event there's no point in separating coverage of Ireland. The fact that there are disjointed but interrelated discussions across both pages suggests even more strongly to me that one good article with a sensible amount of detail that will still be notable in a few weeks would be better than two. Halsteadk (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Keep it at two articles and keep them linked. Also, "...Britain and Ireland" rather than "...United Kingdom", as there's not really enough Irish info to justify its own article.
Look at the bright side. At least the article more well written than a certain other region in the world that nobody cares about. - 60.50.241.18 (talk) 03:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

True -- and let's not forget the snowfall last (Chinese) New Year as well. As a broad point of comparison re objective notability, may I suggest that continental editors check with their local ski resorts? Their opening/closing dates, snow base, and avalanche events should be available locally for this year and past years. Several World Cup events were cancelled in previous years due to lack of snow. - Tenebris

Seperate articles

Like stated above, this article is heavily influenced by the UK, would it be a better idea to split this article so there eople can focus more on certain areas of the continent and how the storm has affected them, as at this moment in time it just looks a miss match of often out of date news. For example this article states 90 people have died in the storm whilst just yesterday I read an article on the BBC saying 120 people had died during the storms in Poland alone. Any thoughts? Stevvvv4444 (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I've hunted around for non-UK info and found a few bits, like the swiss avalanches, just by googling country names and likely phrases ("winter kills" etc) Totnesmartin (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
The problem here is that there are Swiss avalanches every year - they are not normally notable events. Neither is a lot of the cold weather in continental Europe at the moment. --Pontificalibus (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
It was, apparently, Switzerland's worst avalanche disaster in several years, but yes, the danger of reporting the regular as the unusual in the search for content must be heeded. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Exactly, my point proven. If this weather is so common in mainland Europe and there is already a huge focus on the UK then why has it all been clumped together in one article. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 03:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Splitting the article into a new article named Winter storms of 2009–2010 in Great Britain and Ireland
Arguments for splitting Arguments for not splitting
  • This kind of weather is only significant in the United Kingdom - the kind of weather, is not that unusual to Europe - even though it may only come every five years or so. However, this is the worst winter weather in the UK for 28 years. --OrangeStu (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Splitting the article would only increase the number of articles already related to Winter storms of 2009-2010. It would lead to a lower overall quality of the subject and a dispersal of information. - Galmicmi (talk) 12:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Giving special treatment to a geographically small area such as the UK and Ireland would be a clear example of systemic bias. WFCforLife (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Looks like someone has created the article. Simply south (talk) 12:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
It's a very bad idea to split this, especially as the new article is incomplete and has no references. A suggestion had been made to merge it with February 2009 Great Britain and Ireland snowfall which would only confuse matters further, so I've changed it to a suggested merge with this one. As the winter storms are an ongoing event this article is a work in progress. Once it's all over (reckoned to be in nine or ten days time if weather reports from yesterday are anyting to go by) then we'll be able to put this all into perspective and we'll also have a much better idea of how much information needs to be included. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I have less of an issue with a split than I have with the proposed naming. These are not storms in the UK. It is a sustained period of unusually cold weather - storms typically tend to be here today and gone tomorrow. Leaky Caldron 16:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Fahrenheit

Is it really necessary to convert everything in Fahrenheit? Gentleman wiki (talk) 03:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, many people reading this article won't understand the celsius scale. Jolly Ω Janner 16:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Economic impact

I just removed the unsourced claim that the economic impact is £700 million. I have heard many different claims for the economic impact, ranging from £700 million per day at the height of the disruption, to a negligible overall impact, so someone will have to phrase it very carefully if they want to add any claims on this. Here are just a few links:

Much too soon for accurate cost estimates in any case. We probably will not get reliable figures until midsummer. - Tenebris

When I first added that statement it was referenced, but a user removed the citation when making another edit. I have reinstated the inline citation and also added one to the end of every sentence to avoid this mishap happening again. "The full cost to the economy remains to be seen but early estimates set the figure at £700m." Jolly Ω Janner 00:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Picture of Europe?

Could we have a picture of Europe to illustrate the article? The current picture is already used in Winter of 2009-2010 in the United Kingdom so there's no need to use it here as well (no matter how great the picture is). I found a pretty good one showing Europe on the NASA website: [4] It shows the difference of temperature across Europe compared to the period 2000-2008. In particular, it shows that the biggest anomalies are in fact in Poland and Russia. Any objections to using this picture in place of the current one? Laurent (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems good. Get it in high res, crop out Europe and upload it to Commons. The satellite pic of the UK can be put elsewhere. Also, I'm not sure which image to use for that too. We have one that has Great Britain and Ireland and another (in higher res) that has just the UK. Which to use? Jolly Ω Janner 00:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
This version is most likely going to become a featured picture so I guess that the one we should use. The ROI is not really covered in snow so I don't think it matter whether it appears on the picture or not. Laurent (talk) 14:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The fact of the matter is that that's still a picture of the UK (featured picture or not) and the lead image of this article should really be one of Europe. raseaCtalk to me 15:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The image is only for one week in December. It doesn't cover the winter very well. It also crops out parts of Iceland for some reason. Jolly Ω Janner 16:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Effect on UK Exams

Over January, there are two million examinations being held, and there is much discussion as to whether exams will be cancelled (with teacher assessment), forced sitting in June, postponded (i.e. until February) - should this not be discussed? --OrangeStu (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Might be worth mentioning if they are cancelled or whatever. My school has announced it will be open Monday morning just for exams even if it is closed (which is quite likely). I have an exam 9am Monday morning :) Jolly Ω Janner 20:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I thought it was mocks this time of year? (then again, mine were in 1983 so things may have changed just a little...) Totnesmartin (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Nah, real GCSE and A level exams are this week. There are re-take exams for them in June, though, but that would still be disruptive and most students will have forgotten the information by June. Jolly Ω Janner 14:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not noteworthy. Europe isn't exactly on the edge of its seat because of a cancellation of exams that have very little to with them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Sheridan (talk • contribs) 19:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like there weren't any major problems anyway. Looks unotable to me. Jolly Ω Janner 19:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

North America

The winter was also very cold in North America, with Florida seeing some record lows. Surely that also deserves mention? 68.83.179.156 (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Florida - now part of Europe. 81.157.43.45 (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
You can have it.70.171.243.158 (talk) 11:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Slightly adapted the introduction to give global context -

The winter of 2009–2010 in Europe is one of several linked ongoing meteorological events which has been causing unusually cold weather and atypical snowfalls in several parts of the Northern Hemisphere. The northern half of Europe is currently experiencing one of its coldest winters since 1981–1982.

I still don't like "causing" used this way but I have a deadline, will come back to it later. - Tenebris

Maybe someone should mention global warming? 68.143.88.2 (talk) 15:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Original research at this point, no matter how it is worded or which side is supported. Also too early for NPOV in this context. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.90 (talk) 15:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Hopefully when this article is more stable and improvements occur, there will be a causes section. By then there might be more research into the cause of hemisphere-wide disruption. At the moment a link in the see also section to the winter storms of this year will be sufficient. Jolly Ω Janner 17:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for having fixed my grammar and other things. Apparently even simple grammatical agreement is beyond me with too little sleep. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.55 (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Winter_of_2009–10_in_Europe/Archive_2&oldid=1137327595"