This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the
project page for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
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
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
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
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. —
JJBers03:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Placing comparable storms in "see also" is original research
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
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
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
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. —
JJBers00:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)reply (Image is alright now I guess, even though the watermark still bugs me)
Speaking about it, the Impact section seems to be more focused on Canada, while nothing much has been made for the states. —
JJBers02:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)reply
External links modified
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: 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.