Talk:March 2017 North American blizzard

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

Unofficial storm names[edit]

We deal with this issue every year, unless the name becomes notable outside from just being a term coined we should not be advertising for different media outlets. In the January 2016 United States blizzard article, no names are used in the lead instead a section is devoted to names given January 2016 United States blizzard#Naming. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 In progress – will add that shortly. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 17:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done March 2017 nor'easter#Unofficial Naming. —JJBers 00:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But it does make such articles bloody hard to find and for Google to index the storm under a name widely used abroad, because US editors have an aversion to "advertising".Lacunae (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think winter storm Stella should be in bold in the lede, it's a widely used alternative name, and is a redirect. I think the name has achieved notability enough in being used by other media besides the weather channel, and is a significant alternate title according to Wikipedia:Article_titles#Treatment of alternative names Otherwise you're currently according it the same relevance as other names I've not seen used at all, which could be undue weight.Lacunae (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We had that sort of problem about two years ago with the January 2015 North American blizzard; for a while "Winter Storm Juno" and "Blizzard of 2015" were bolded, but that sparked a debate that linked back somewhat to the November 2012 nor'easter madness; eventually we kind of settled on including both in lead, italicised but say such as "The storm was given unofficial names, such as Winter Storm Juno and Blizzard of 2015" and more towards the end of the first paragraph in the lead. In addition, we also add a "Naming" section at the bottom, where we say the same thing above, but a bit more thorough. However we also include the NWS statement of not officially naming these systems. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 22:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We cant give too much undue weight to names dubbed by the media. As it is The Weather Channel uses the names to help with publicity, which goes against WP:SOAPBOX. [1] A brief name in the lead, and a separate section should be enough. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying I find it odd that putting Winter storm Stella into google, isn't bringing up this page in the lead results for me. This is a widely used name for the storm. Citing soapbox appears to be a rather proscriptive wikilawyering interpretation and past application of such used as precedent does not equal valid codification.Lacunae (talk) 10:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:AGF, and read WP:UNDUE. We have no control on what Google does. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

German weather service, BBC, Deutsche Welle, Guardian, CNBC...etc smacks of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.Lacunae (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But the name Stella originated from TWC, which isn't an official tracking center unlike NWS, so the name is still unofficial. Also, referring to your Google thing, when I type "Winter Storm Juno" in the search engine it comes up at the side with the blip from here on the January 2015 North American blizzard. The same goes for Jonas/2016 blizzard. Give it a week or two and when you type "Winter Storm Stella" in google it should come up with the link to this page (since Winter Storm Stella redirects to the main article on this storm) at the right of the screen. It just happened 3 days ago, so it's not a problem that it hasn't showed the article on Wikipedia yet. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 15:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The converse of that is WP:ILIKEIT, just because sources use the naming doesn't mean it is a majority viewpoint. Keeping the names un-bolded makes the article WP:NPOV, and doesn't distract from the main purpose of the article which is to talk about the storm. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point MarioProtIV. I disagree with Knowledgekid87 still though as I think your idea of what is a neutral point of view, is not. I've shown that the name Stella is a valid alternative name used by multiple major outlets and is certainly more notable than Blizzard Eugene for instance. I don't think notions of whether it is official or advertising or not promogulated by NWS, has any bearing on the matter. I do though recognise that you likely live in an area where the NWS influence makes your perceived exposure to the name much less, and the converse for me.Lacunae (talk) 10:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Totals[edit]

Does anyone have any snow totals for any areas out in the Mid-West? I had to use a local Fox News station in Wisconsin to get snow fall totals, but that report was only for that state. —JJBers 03:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TWC has their Midwest recap which includes the snow totals. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 03:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not even a hour old, wow. —JJBers 04:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ITN[edit]

Do you think this is a ITN worthy article for March 14th? —JJBers 04:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JJBers: Not particularly, loss of life is limited and disruptions are not as extensive as expected. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Placing comparable storms in "see also" is original research[edit]

This hasn't been an issue thus far, but things need to change regarding this practice. I would love to compare every blizzard that hit the USA to the (example) 1993 Storm of the Century because of x, but we really cant be doing this. The WP:OR policy says that " The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." As in, I can allege that the two are similar because of x but so can any other editor who may disagree because of y. Anything that is likely to be challenged needs a reliable source to it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

no Disagree – WP:SEEALSO does not say anything about including refs in the "See also" section: "Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number." --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 15:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS is a guideline, WP:OR is policy. Are you saying that any editor can compare any storm here? It will boil down to a personal opinion debate. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was part of a discussion of this that raised this exact issue a couple of months ago (in the context of BLP, natch!) The consensus is that, since the section hed explicitly removes it from the set of facts claimed by the article, it is the one place in an article where OR is OK, limited only by the "editorial judgment and common sense" cited above. Daniel Case (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case: My biggest worry is editors adding what storm they feel is closest, just because. I can see this practice working on more clear cut articles or related items, but on average more than one huge winter storm hits the USA in a given year. Multiply these multiple winter storms in a given year and you have a huge pool to choose from. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Knowledgekid87: The idea is that you should at least put in some text explaining why it's relevant. See, for instance, the see-also section I put in the article about the Family Guy episode "Back to the Pilot", which explains why 11/22/63 is there (similar "going back in time to put right what once went wrong results in a worse event happening instead" plot). In the instant example, I see the 1993 example as relevant due to its timing, and the 2013 one due to its similar formation. The former isn't explained, and should be. Daniel Case (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree , unneeded 'See Also' link. —JJBers 00:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I think Daniel Case proved a good case, as the see also is usually the only place where *OR* is allowed, like he said.!--MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 00:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It should be on a case by case basis, some articles it works fine, others it doesn't. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image[edit]

To try not having a edit war, the reason I replaced the image was because of the large watermark at the bottom-left corner of the image, distortion isn't really well fixed in the NOAA image, and lost resolution from the tiny image. —JJBers 00:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Image is alright now I guess, even though the watermark still bugs me)

The watermark isn't really visible from my standpoint, but if it bugs you that much, I will crop it tomorrow, but for now leave it be. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 00:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just leave it blank for now. —JJBers 01:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC) (See above)[reply]
Many NOAA and otherwise government-produced images also have unintrusive watermarks. This is not at all a significant problem. Master of Time (talk) 01:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Americano-centered[edit]

This article is too much focussing on United States impacts while Canada was hit as badly. The introduction is particularly Americano-centered.

Pierre cb (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking about it, the Impact section seems to be more focused on Canada, while nothing much has been made for the states. —JJBers 02:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on March 2017 North American blizzard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:March_2017_North_American_blizzard&oldid=1208356058"