Talk:January 31 – February 3, 2021 nor'easter

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mention on Portal:Current events[edit]

The winter storm has been mentioned on Portal:Current events for January 29, 2021. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to article space - Discussion[edit]

CLOSED
Closing this discussion, as it has been rendered moot for a day now. The article ended up being moved back to mainspace a day later. Non-administrator closure-- LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 08:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Does anyone oppose to a move to article space? This has attracted attention in the US national news, so notability on RS has been established. If no one opposes, I will move it to article space in a few hours. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Not yet; that would be premature. Not that much news about what has already happened is available and the article is not in good quality. We should wait until this system begins impacting the Midwest, and then move it to mainspace. HurricaneCovid (contribs) 13:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Split nor'easter[edit]

CLOSED
Moved to "February 2021 nor'easter. The storm has since developed a new low near the East Coast, which is now developing into a nor'easter. Closing this discussion, since it is pretty much moot at this point. We can revisit this topic later if necessary. Non-administrator closure-- LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 08:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

@HurricaneCovid, MarioProtIV, and LightandDark2000: I am thinking of splitting the eventual impacts and preps of Orlena in the Northeastern United States. This is because the nor'easter that is supposed to hit the BosWash metropolis is supposed to drop up to 2 ft of snow. This is a potentially blockbuster nor'easter, as stated by many meteorologists, and the the DC/Philly/NYC area's most significant since perhaps the Blizzard of 2016. Thoughts? ~ Destroyeraa🌀🇺🇸 15:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I have also suggested this off-wiki and I think this is a good idea. The nor'easter is a different low pressure than the West Coast and Midwest one. Also, as you mentioned, this will be a blockbuster nor'easter and it will be a major snow event for all major cities from DC to Boston. HurricaneCovid (contribs) 15:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral leaning support My only hesitation is that even though TWC isn’t official, they consider both systems Orlena. Also there was some form of energy from it contributing to the developing in the Rockies. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 15:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @MarioProtIV: This is a typical Miller B nor'easter, when a parent low died over the Ohio Valley/Appalachians and a new low forms offshor NC/VA. Orlena's main impact IMO is in the Northeastern United States, along with some nasty mudslides in the West. In the Midwest and Ohio Valley, this is just another run-of-the-mill winter storm. ~ Destroyeraa🌀🇺🇸 19:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose – If the storms are related (for example, the parent low spawning a new low), we tend to maintain one article for both systems. However, if the storms are entirely unrelated (aside from The Weather Channel's naming), then the article should be split. From what I have seen, this appears to be a the case of the former – an extratropical storm developing a new low pressure center, which later dominates the overall weather system (the original low often dies during the process). Generally, speaking, the current system appears to be the same one that moved ashore in California only a couple of days ago, even though it looks like the original low pressure center has since been replaced by a new one. We've had other cases of such occurrences in the past, but in each case, we've had the same article for the overall storm. Extratropical cyclones can be trickier like this, but this actually isn't that uncommon. Unless we're dealing with two entirely unrelated storms in terms of meteorological origins, I think that we should keep one article. However, if this storm develops a third low off the East Coast that becomes a separate system (nor'easter), I would be open to an article split. Until then, I think that moving to split the article would be acting too soon, on the grounds of WP:CRYSTALBALL (we can't assume that the storm will spawn a new system offshore, even if the models are pointing in that direction). LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of this storm, if the article is kept as one, we could easily expand it to accommodate the impacts. And since the nor'easter phase will almost certainly be the dominant phase of this storm, it should be renamed to something along the lines of January 31–February 2, 2021 nor'easter, or Early February 2021 nor'easter, if the article isn't split. Which isn't marginalizing the impacts in the Western or Central U.S., BTW. Instead, a renaming of the article would place the focus on the stage of its lifecycle for which it had the greatest impacts. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True. Most blockbuster nor'easters originate as storms on the west coast or in the midwest anyway, so it wouldn't be too unusual to have them all together. Wikicanada1127 (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Name of the article[edit]

CLOSED
Article title has settled on January 31 – February 3, 2021 nor'easter. If we still want to change the title, we can revisit this in another discussion. Non-administrator closure-- LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

As I understand the previous vote, the article will continue to talk about the storm that cross the US and the Nor'easter. The name of the article is thus misleading as any user going to the article will think that it only talk about the Nor'easter. Wouldn't it be better to rename it something as "Late January and early February 2021 North American winter storm" or "Late January 2021 North American winter storm and early February Nor'easter" ?

Pierre cb (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Pierre cb. I'll do rename it to ""Late January to early February 2021 nor'easter." ~~ 🌀𝕾𝖚𝖕𝖊𝖗 𝕮𝖞𝖈𝖑𝖔𝖓𝖎𝖈 𝕾𝖙𝖔𝖗𝖒 𝕮𝖔𝖗𝖔𝖓𝖆🌀 19:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pierre cb and Super Cyclonic Storm Corona: No, don't make any more page moves at this time. It was one storm system that ended up spawning a new low and getting dominated by the new low a couple of times (the newest low is currently the center of the nor'easter). Any experienced reader will understand this. The title currently reflects the most significant stage of the storm's life span (the nor'easter phase). It does not mean that we are looking at two different storms or that we are ignoring the impacts in the Western and Central U.S. We do not need to spell it out for them in the article title. If people want to learn more about the storm, they should read the article. We've titled multiple other storm articles in a similar manner. If the article is renamed to a different title that removes "nor'easter" from the title, it should be renamed to something like "Late January–early February 2021 North American blizzard". And there should be no further page-moves (other than to a more specific title specifying the dates) unless there is consensus to do so. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You might need to change it to "February 2021 North American Blizzard" as there were areas in Long Island and Rhode Island that did indeed meet blizzard criteria.WarDestroyer88 (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many nor'easters end up causing blizzard conditions. The choice of the wording for the article title depends on which aspect of the storm we want to place more emphasis on. To me, the current title works just fine (though we may have to get a little more specific eventually, such as "Early February 2021 nor'easter"). LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LightandDark2000, yeah ok, but when should we add the “Early” in the name? ~~ 🌀𝕾𝖚𝖕𝖊𝖗 𝕮𝖞𝖈𝖑𝖔𝖓𝖎𝖈 𝕾𝖙𝖔𝖗𝖒 𝕮𝖔𝖗𝖔𝖓𝖆🌀 23:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If/when there is another nor'easter that gets an article this month, then we'll add the "early" tag to the article name (or specify the dates when the storm was active in North America). However, if we don't get another notable nor'easter this month, then the current article title can stay. Either way, we shouldn't make those changes ahead of time. We can always move this article later if we have to. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another question: Why not use "Storm Orlena" as The weather Channel calls it? Pierre cb (talk) 04:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You mean "Winter Storm Orlena"? (Full name, it's the UK that uses the shorter "Storm" names.) Well, in 2013, there was consensus not to do so. Largely because the naming scheme is unofficial (there are other reasons as well, but those are more contentious). I'm personally fine with renaming to Winter Storm Orlena, but the WikiProject has already decided not to do so. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 07:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. But I did add a mention of the unofficial name by TWC in the intro with reference. It is worth mentioning, especially that I even found https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9212765/Storm-Orlena-leaves-four-dead-including-three-died-murder-suicide.html[ this article] from UK that mention the name. Pierre cb (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should be January-February name since starting on January 29, the article has been being mentioned in Portal:Current events. I don't really care about it being like "late-January to early-February" or anything like that as that is a discussion for itself, however, because 3 days in January (and at least 3-4 days in February) it will be mentioned on the Current Event Portal, it should be a split name like that. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about January—February 2021 North American blizzard since blizzard conditions were reported in Islip, New York? Credit to HurricaneCovid~ Destroyeraa🌀🇺🇸 19:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support January–February 2021 North American blizzard – The storm was very potent in the West and Midwest in January, and this name includes the entire timeframe and doesn't focus on one aspect. HurricaneCovid (contribs) 19:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral on renaming to the proposed blizzard title above. Either title works (both that one and the current one). However, I do want to point out that if we rename, we'll probably have to mention the specific dates, and we don't want to get that specific if we don't have to, since that makes it harder for readers to directly access the article. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:- I think we should also consider the fact that the storm dropped 107 in. of snow in California. Thus, I support the blizzard name.
    ~~ 🎸🎻🥋🏅🌀𝕾𝖚𝖕𝖊𝖗 𝕮𝖞𝖈𝖑𝖔𝖓𝖎𝖈 𝕾𝖙𝖔𝖗𝖒 𝕮𝖔𝖗𝖔𝖓𝖆🌀🏅🥋🎻🎸 14:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: – The article has since been moved to January 31 – February 3, 2021 nor'easter, with the development of another significant nor'easter this weekend. Any further proposals to rename this article should be discussed further before being implemented. At this point, I do not think we need to rename this article again regarding the date tags. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.

BosWash[edit]

Unrelated to the article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

what the heck is the "BosWash metropolis", cited above (closed discussion)? i assume boston and DC, together, but what sense does that make when NYC and philly are treated separately?!

in a similar vein, "New England" is a subset of "the Northeast". it makes no sense to list them one after the other. either move the former UNDER the latter, or find a better term for "non-New England Northeast". "Mid-Atlantic"? "Tristate Area"? "Greater NY"? 66.30.47.138 (talk) 11:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@66.30.47.138: The BosWash megalopolis is all major cities along the I-95 corridor from DC to Boston, including Wilmington, Philly, NYC, Hartford, and Providence. HurricaneCovid (contribs) 15:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
as a native bostonian, i have never heard this even ONCE. "boston-washington corridor" is sometimes used. moreover, it says metropolis, singular, not some combination term (much less "megalopolis").
discussions are complicated enuf w/o ppl showing off their pet buzzwords. has anyone actually USED this term since its appearance in some obscure (googling) 1967 essay?
let's stick to english, folks! 66.30.47.138 (talk) 04:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance[edit]

So Im trying to upload a short clip of me recording the brunt of the snowstorm in my area but it refused to accept the file name. I've changed it multiple times and it still won't accept it.WarDestroyer88 (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)Wardestroyer88[reply]

@WarDestroyer88: Try CloudConvert and convert it into a webm. ~ Destroyeraa🌀🇺🇸 16:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Destroyeraa: Thanks. Much appreciated.WarDestroyer88 (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)WarDestroyer88[reply]

Boston?[edit]

what is the source for "Large metropolitan areas such as Boston and New York City saw as much as 18–24 inches (46–61 cm)"? Boston received 1-4", depending on district. i do not believe ANY area received 18 inches -- that was elsewhere in the STATE.

NYC and philly were hit hard; Boston was largely spared. 66.30.47.138 (talk) 23:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Large metropolitan areas" means the metro area, which menas the Boston Metro and the NYC metro. the Boston Metro did receive 18-24 in, as well as the NYC metro. Please check your sources. ~ Destroyeraa🌀🇺🇸 23:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I myself am a Boston metro resident, living along the inner loop (I-95) of Boston and measured 21 inches of snow. I believe that firsthand experience is a good source, and there are many other sources, including the National Weather Service, which show that both the Boston and NYC metros saw 18-24 inches of snow. Please make sure you use reliable sources, such as the National Weather Service for snowfall totals. HurricaneCovid (contribs) 02:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
does "saw" here mean "in at least one spot"?
i assumed it meant "average". since many areas of boston got 4" or less, an average of 18-24" implies there were also areas getting 36" or 48" or whatever. i do not believe this was the case.
wouldn't it be more accurate to say boston saw 8" or 10" or w/e the real average was, rather than this misleading "certain towns" figure? if the city proper got 4" and some south shore suburbs like yours got 21" or even 24", boston saw a number in the middle; not the 21" or 24" outlier. 66.30.47.138 (talk) 04:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Issue?[edit]

Why is the image showing the Winter Storm Watches and Warnings near the middle of the Preparations, and not on the right? ~~ 🎸🎻🥋🏅🌀𝕾𝖚𝖕𝖊𝖗 𝕮𝖞𝖈𝖑𝖔𝖓𝖎𝖈 𝕾𝖙𝖔𝖗𝖒 𝕮𝖔𝖗𝖔𝖓𝖆🌀🏅🥋🎻🎸 18:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Super Cyclonic Storm Corona: It's because the infobox is very long, and extends all the way down past the Met history section. The image showing the weather alerts is in a table, and tables don't go under the infobox, instead they go to the left of it. I will add a clr tag to the bottom of the met history to fix this. HurricaneCovid (contribs) 19:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. ~~ 🎸🎻🥋🏅🌀𝕾𝖚𝖕𝖊𝖗 𝕮𝖞𝖈𝖑𝖔𝖓𝖎𝖈 𝕾𝖙𝖔𝖗𝖒 𝕮𝖔𝖗𝖔𝖓𝖆🌀🏅🥋🎻🎸 22:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User HurricaneCovid's WP:OR claim[edit]

Reverted this edit here as it constitutes Original Research in violation of the WP:OR policy that "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented". The editor's edit summary reasoning here that it is "better to put more emphasis on wording in the lead" is an invalid reason to keep the material as it's not supported by any RS. Mercy11 (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibility of more February nor'easters[edit]

The name of the article should be changed because it's possible or even likely that there will be more than one February 2021 nor'easters. Wikicanada1127 (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the Article (cont.)[edit]

MarioProtIV, we need to consider all impacts, and besides, the highest snowfall was in the West Coast. ~~ 🏅🌀𝕾𝖚𝖕𝖊𝖗 𝕮𝖞𝖈𝖑𝖔𝖓𝖎𝖈 𝕾𝖙𝖔𝖗𝖒 𝕮𝖔𝖗𝖔𝖓𝖆🌀🏅 15:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But the highest impacts were in the northeast where the nor’easter occurred. More people will remember this for the nor’easter impacts, not the west coast stuff. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 15:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioProtIV: Yes, but the impacts on the West Coast are still important. ~~ 🏅🌀𝕾𝖚𝖕𝖊𝖗 𝕮𝖞𝖈𝖑𝖔𝖓𝖎𝖈 𝕾𝖙𝖔𝖗𝖒 𝕮𝖔𝖗𝖔𝖓𝖆🌀🏅 15:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The nor'easter title does not leave out the impacts on the West Coast. It just focuses on the one stage of the storm's life where it was the most notable. We can move to a blizzard title in the future if we get consensus for it, but the current title is fine. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Nor'easter which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:January_31_–_February_3,_2021_nor%27easter&oldid=1207794325"