Talk:February 2013 North American blizzard: Difference between revisions

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Canada: Ontario / Quebec / Nova Scotia / New Brunswick / Prince Edward Island / Newfoundland & Labrador / Toronto / Montreal / Ottawa C‑class Mid‑importance 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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario. This article is supported by WikiProject Quebec. This article is supported by WikiProject Nova Scotia. This article is supported by WikiProject New Brunswick. This article is supported by WikiProject Prince Edward Island. This article is supported by WikiProject Newfoundland and Labrador. This article is supported by WikiProject Toronto. This article is supported by WikiProject Montreal. This article is supported by WikiProject Ottawa. Disaster management C‑class High‑importance 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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Maine C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maine 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.MaineWikipedia:WikiProject MaineTemplate:WikiProject MaineMaine articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. New Jersey C‑class Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. New York (state) C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York 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.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. New York City C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles 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.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject Non-tropical storms United States: Massachusetts / Boston / New Hampshire / Rhode Island / Vermont C‑class High‑importance 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts. This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts - Boston. This article is supported by WikiProject New Hampshire. This article is supported by WikiProject Rhode Island. This article is supported by WikiProject Vermont.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

A news item involving February 2013 North American blizzard was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 10 February 2013.

As annoying as this discussion is, for the first time since TWC started naming storms on their own, the TWC winter storm name is commonly being used to denote the storm by reliable news sources, above and beyond the scattered articles explaining *why* people were using the name. As of now, in Google News, a non-exhaustive list of reliable sources using the name Winter Storm Nemo solely as the name of the storm (rather than article about the naming which is in today's NY Times) includes the Wall Street Journal, Newsday, the Jersey Journal, Christian Science Monitor, New York Magazine, the Republican (Springfield, MA paper, not the party, the Lehigh Valley Express-Times, the International Business Times, the Concord Monitor, the Morris Daily Record, the Saginaw News, the Poughkeepsie Journal, and so on and on and on. New York and Bloomberg are giving "Nemo" safety instructions and using the #nemo tag on official emergency information given on their Twitter account.

Even if Nemo is sourced from a commercial concern and not the "official" name (as odd a concept as that is, from a legal standpoint), the fact is that Nemo *is* being used to convey information about the storm. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and avoiding a name for something commonly used is just strange. It would be the equivalent of making sure that Hulk Hogan is always called "Terry Bollea" because Hulk Hogan is a commercial name not recognized as official by any branch of government. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, the front page of Google news doesn't give it that name. I think it might be worth a mention, but I don't think that should be the name for the article. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to agree with C.C. To elaborate further, until these TWC names catch on (because frankly I'm not too excited about some of them and just generally the idea that they exist in the private sector only), I think we need to handle page naming on a case-by-case basis. There's overwhelming evidence that this storm is being referred to by its TWC name, and I think we need to honor that here. Other storms thus far, not so much, and we should leave them in their generic state. Winter Storm Nemo should be the name of this page, not a redirect to February 2013 nor'easter, something people would never think to search for. Jared (t)  18:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree-- the overwhelming consensus amongst all major media is that this is Nemo. Strong support use of name "Winter Storm Nemo," rather than non-descriptive Wikipedia-created name "February 2013 nor'easter." And double strong support mention of name "Nemo" within current article regardless of whether or not re-named. ProfessorTofty (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The problem with people searching is solved by the redirect. There was a rename discussion over Winter Storm Athena (which turned into November 2012 nor'easter), an AfD for Winter Storm Brutus, as well as an an AfD for the entire "storm season" as named by TWC, where consensus was to delete the storm season article and to use names like "February 2013 nor'easter" as this article currently does. There was also an RFC over the use of TWC's names where the consensus was TWC's names are invalid. I think that's plenty of precedent that we can conclude the article retain its generic title. I'm also not sure whether including the nickname in the lede is appropriate given precedent, but it seems like it should go somewhere if it's being widely used and doesn't look too bad now that it's not stuck in the first sentence. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 18:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like it or not, the name has stuck and is being used by a large number of media outlets to refer to the storm. The general Wikipedia naming conventions that say an article title should be at its common name would seem to take over here. The article should be moved. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A large number of outlets doesn't really mean much, since plenty of other outlets are NOT using anything but generic language. E.g., CNN [1], MSNBC [2], and the BBC [3] are all just referring to the storm without referencing "Nemo" at the moment. Unless this becomes the common name AND there are references that state that "Winter Storm Nemo" IS the common name (other than The Weather Channel), it's just a nickname that some outlets are using. Given several similar past discussions as I gave above, specifically on the validity of TWC's names, I don't see why we would adopt a name that some organizations are using and some aren't, and that the NWS recommends *not* be used. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 18:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a difference between creating articles for and naming every TWC storm (like Brutus), and doing it only for the relevant storms. Wikipedia's series of Atlantic Hurricane articles certainly doesn't create an article for "insignificant" tropical storms, and I don't think anyone here would argue for that either. Like Rreagan said, the common name is Nemo. It's only been a few days, but already, anyone you mention the word Nemo to would know what you're taking about. What is this storm going to be referred to in 10 years? I don't know, but probably not some arbitrary name created by Wikipedians for consistency. In reality, TWC's creation of a (albeit poor) naming scheme shows the public demand for names for these storms. The public has clearly responded well, and in line with WP policy I don't even see why this should be a debate. The quoted discussions that have taken place previously shouldn't have standing here, because the impact that this storm would have had on that debate would have turned it into a different animal. Jared (t)  19:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hehehehe...yes, the TC project does. =) I know of FA and GA articles on completely insignificant named Atlantic TCs. Strong support for the move, since any google search would likely yield an overwhelming response for Nemo. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have in fact read the discussion about winter storm naming earlier. It was an easier issue back then as the Weather Channel name was less used in reliable sources at that time. The notability of these TWC winter storm names appears to have increased considerably since Athena, so I don't think that's the same conversation any longer. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the NWS is king here. Regardless of other media outlets, until they officially recognize the name (or at least some of their offices do), TWC names should NOT be used as article names. They should redirect, though. CrazyC83 (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry to say it, but it appears that TWC is winning the battle. Many outlets, like Huffington Post and the Daily Beast, are using the title. And while agencies like CNN are not, the common name is clearly Nemo. Take stock of Twitter, Facebook, or the internet in general. Nemo has won the common name battle. If it is the common name, it should be the title. Wikipedia should not make political statements that outright reject a name because it was created by an “unofficial” source. If it is the common name, it is the common name. People appear to be looking for “Nemo”, not for “February 2013 nor’easter”. The previous RfCs could not have anticipated that the name would be adopted as it has this time. Athena &c. were rather ignored, but that isn’t the case here. RGloucester (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be interesting to go down the path with the possibility that it's not really a "TWC" name. Sure, TWC came up with it. But technically, it's hit the mainstream and become the "common name" for the storm. It's not my understanding that TWC is purporting to claim any rights to the name. Using this logic, the originator of the name is irrelevant, whether its TWC or NWS. Common name is common name. Jared (t)  20:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Rename, There are plenty of reliable sources CNN included that dont use the name Nemo. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course CNN doesn't use the name "Nemo"; they're competing directly with The Weather Channel, they wouldn't want to use their name. ProfessorTofty (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Along with these sources: (NBC), (The Huffington Post), (Fox news) and the sources mentioned above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More sources that dont use Nemo: (Bloomberg),(The Herald) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huff Post has begun using Nemo in many articles today [4]. In fact, Huff Post has a whole page dedicated to the storm titled as such [5]. Wall Street Journal is using it as well [6]. NBC News has got it as well, in some places [7]. Bloomberg News has it [8]. What is very apparent, from what I’ve seen, is that yesterday these sources were not using Nemo. However, as they have seen it be adopted on social media and elsewhere, they too have started using it. Wikipedia should do the same. RGloucester (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The link Presented by NBC you found is referring to the video from the weather channel. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If certain sources have chosen to forbid "Nemo" because they feel they're competing with The Weather Channel, that's their look-out. This thing is all over Twitter. ProfessorTofty (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do Wikipedia's own statistics show? How many searches for "Nemo" have come in, as opposed to searches for "February storm in northeast US," "nor'easter of February 2013," "2013 New England blizzard," and the like? Jacob (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dozens of reliable sources referring to it as "Nemo" and how many reliable sources referring to it as "February 2013 nor'easter"? I'm guessing none. The train has left the station and Wikipedia is getting left behind. And as of an hour ago CNN does seem to have at least 1 story on the name of the storm here Rreagan007 (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it maybe time to hold a formal vote regarding the matter, then? ProfessorTofty (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

#Nemo is trending in Twitter, while there is no results for February 2013 nor'easter (compare it with Winter storm Nemo)... doesn’t that means anything? ★ Nacho ★ ★ 22:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're missing the big picture here. The worst of the storm hasn't happened yet. Afew years back, a blizzard was commonly known as something stupid like "Snowicane". I don't believe that name is that common anymore. I think the bigger focus now should be on improving the article and keeping it up to date, not about what it's called on Twitter. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping the article title up to date is important as well. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course "February 2013 nor'easter" isn't going to trend on Twitter. It's a generic name. If you want to do a comparison and see how popular "Winter Storm Nemo" is compared to alternatives, you'd need to look at the number of people mentioning "storm" or "blizzard" and similar terms, which is of course not an easy task. Just comparing the two terms isn't a reasonable comparison since the current one is a generic descriptive name. (Not to mention, many of the tweets seem to be about random other Nemo-related things rather than the storm itself at this point.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has been proposed in this section that February 2013 North American blizzard be renamed and moved to Winter Storm Nemo. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

February 2013 nor'easter → Winter Storm Nemo – Please put your reason for moving here. ProfessorTofty (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC) Per the above discussion, I think it is time to make a decision regarding this matter.[reply]

• Support for all of the reasons given above. Widespread usage of term "Winter Storm Nemo" throughout major sources including Twitter, major media organizations and at least one CNN article, no media usage of term "February 2013 nor'easter." ProfessorTofty (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest starting a formal discussion at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Unfortunately, the storm will probably be over before the discussion is. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what about established consensus? The article isn't move-protected, last I checked, and the majority of messages already here seem to Support renaming of the article. ProfessorTofty (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support renaming the article based on Wikipedia naming policy WP:COMMONNAME. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then, that's it. I'm going to be bold and do it. I haven't seen any strong objection and there's another in support of it there. ProfessorTofty (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • (sigh) Apparently I can't do it because of the existing "Winter Storm Nemo" redirect. Very well, move process it is. ProfessorTofty (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)There were several people disagreeing, and most of the pro-rename arguments have been "it looks like it's being used a lot by some media and on Twitter." I don't feel like we have a consensus, and especially since this exact same type of move has been contentious, I don't think moving it without actually forming consensus is reasonable. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - per Talk:November 2012 nor'easter#RfC on the validity of names given by TWC. Nothing has changed since that was discussed. And, if I'm not mistaken, it was agreed to not even mention the name in the articles. United States Man (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, EVERYTHING has changed since that discussion based on recent events. That discussion is now completely irrelevant as it pertanes to the name of this storm. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah? Well, since everything has changed, write a detailed paragraph explaining what exactly has changed. It sounds to me like you are just arguing for your side, even though there is nothing to back you up. Sort of like politics. United States Man (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that I can see that's really changed is that more organizations are using it, and there's more social media use. But that doesn't seem to rise to the level of it being the common name for the event at all, since so many other organizations are NOT using "Nemo." Other than that, the previous arguments about notability, authoritativeness, the NWS, and other points all stand just fine. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME the sources presented above show that the name Nemo is not being used, Twitter and Facebook in additon are not WP:RS. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Around 50,000,000 hits on Google and the claim is that the name isn't being used? ProfessorTofty (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see: WP:GYNOT - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I read it, and I still don't agree with your point. The first three results are PBS, Christian Science Monitor and National Geographic, other sources using this name include the Huffington Post, New York Post, New York Times, Newsday and Slate Magazine. This name is being used. ProfessorTofty (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you arguing that "February 2013 nor'easter" is the common name of the storm? Rreagan007 (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Im arguing that there are more reliable sources that are not using it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then based on your assessment of reliable sources, what is the common name for this storm? Rreagan007 (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's just it. There is no common name. That is why we use names like the name of this article, as it is commonplace on Wikipedia. I get tired of arguing about the same things all the time. As Hink said below, get back to improving the article, not worrying about the name. United States Man (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • "There is no common name"? Are you sure about that? Rreagan007 (talk) 23:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yeah, I'm very sure. There are many names out there to describe this storm. United States Man (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • And of those "many names out there to describe this storm", which one is the most common? Rreagan007 (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • Who knows? Would you like to count through the thousands of Google results one-by-one, remembering to take out duplicates and unreliable articles. Which, by the way, would be WP:OR anyway. I really don't think that we have a consensus at this point, so it doesn't look like this article will be moving anywhere. United States Man (talk) 02:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • It is absolutely not WP:OR to look at reliable sources to determine what is the most common name for an article topic. But yes, that is exactly what we should be doing to determine what the most common name for this storm is. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• (break) If it is not original research, then show me how you can source it (and not the whole search, because, like I said, it contains many duplicates and unreliable sources). United States Man (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per reasons given above, and the NWS stating that they will not use names for winter storms. When the official storm-naming body (which we treat as authoritative for things like hurricane names) says they don't intend to name winter storms, then that's reasonable to follow unless there is truly widespread usage. Plus various reasons brought up in the AfD for "Winter Storm Brutus", AfD for "2012-13 U.S winter storm season", and RFC on using "Winter Storm Athena", all of which concluded that using TWC names is improper. Irrespective of what the NWS prefers, right now most news organizations seem to be using generic names anyways. (E.g. "the storm.") If reliable secondary sources actually say that "Nemo" has become the common name for this storm (to the exclusion of generic names, which isn't the case), then perhaps it'd be reasonable to move it. Right now it's just a name that SOME organizations (and apparently people on social media) have picked up, and that's why we have a redirect. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • People in the Caribbean basin has named hurricanes long before the NWS existed; and a storm could easily have different names or nicknames (like in winter storms: XXX Blizzard, Snowmageddon, Snowpocalypse). Then one day the NWS decided to give itself the "authority" of naming tropical cyclones and imposed the names to everyone. But what really matters is that people got used to it and started using the names of the list, and that is what's happening now with TWC and winter storms. ★ Nacho ★ ★ 23:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no section of WP:COMMONNAME called WP:WHATEVERTHENWSSAYS. From WP:COMMONNAME "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." Nero, to a far greater extent than previous TWC names, by far, is being used more often than other names in English-language reliable sources. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really? I haven't heard of this "Winter Storm Nero." Is it a new storm that has formed? (I'm not really serious, just trying to make light of the situation) United States Man (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except the most frequent usage seems to be just to call this thing a storm, nor'easter, blizzard, or whatever, which is what we're doing and seems in line with the spirit of WP:COMMONNAME. I can just as easily point to WP:POVNAME and note that using TWC's marketing term is POV, since there are plenty of media outlets that are specifically not using "Nemo", not just the NWS. We avoid any neutrality issues with a generic name and a redirect. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, it's too early to tell if Nemo is just a meme (like the Snowicane I mentioned above) or if it'll be known as the name of the event. If NWS starts picking up on it (big if, I know), then it'd lend credence to a name change. Now can we get back to improving the article? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Becoming very bored with people saying "let's just get back to the article" as if waving away the discussion like it doesn't even matter. At least give other people a chance to weigh in, like those in the above discussion who supported the rename. ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support - I did not want this to happen, but Winter Storm Nemo has become the common name. Many reliable sources use the title, as has been shown in the discussion above (Huff Post, Daily Beast, PBS, CS Monitor, WSJ, &c.) . Not just that, but it is clear that the public at large does in fact refer to the storm as “Nemo”, per Twitter, Facebook, &c. The current title is not what people will be searching for. They will be searching for Nemo. What’s even more interesting, though, is how this has evolved over time. Yesterday, most media sources did not use the name Nemo. Now, however, sources that were not using that title have adopted it (e.g. WSJ), mimicking social media. Wikipedia should do the same. Wikipedia should not make political statements that outright reject a name because it was created by an “unofficial” source. If it is the common name, it is the common name. What’s more, it can be argued that this has nothing to do with TWC. The name has taken on a life of its own in social media and people’s minds. The article should be moved. RGloucester (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Someone has even gone so far as to remove the name “Winter Storm Nemo” from the lead of this article. That seems totally inappropriate, seeing as many of the sources cited by this article use that name. The prior RfC could not have anticipated that this name would be taken up by the people. This is not like with the so-called “Athena”, where the name was essentially ignored. Now, it has currency among the populace. RGloucester (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there should be some mention of the name in the article, since it definitely is being more commonly used than the previous TWC names and is certainly in some of the references. We did reach a rough consensus not to even include the TWC names in a previous discussion, but the usage wasn't nearly as high in previous cases. I'm not sure it belongs in the lead though; perhaps a solution like with November 2012 nor'easter#Name, although that's kind of ugly. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and made the section, although not what some would like it does warrent a mention. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I'm not personally crazy about the whole thing myself, but it is the most common name used and this is an encyclopedia. That not everyone is using Winter Storm Nemo isn't all that useful because they're not using a common separate term; they're not choosing to use "February 2013 nor'easter," they're generally using just general terms that don't aid in naming the article. It's the common name used and what the NWC wants isn't really relevant. The standard of Wikipedia is notability and this is now the most notable single name for this storm, as far as I can tell. We don't use the "Korean Police Action" to refer to the Korean War because the "Korean War" is notable, despite it never being a declared war and Truman using the former to refer to it. If the most common single term used in the press was "Holy Hell There's a Lot of Damn Snow and Wind and ConEd's Going to Take 5 Days To Get My Power Back On Superstorm," that's what the article should be called. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. We're not supposed to pick names off of Google because there are many other names out there as well. A redirect is fine. Your statement (If the most common single term used in the press was "Holy Hell There's a Lot of Damn Snow and Wind and ConEd's Going to Take 5 Days To Get My Power Back On Superstorm," that's what the article should be called.) is rediculous. This is an encyclopedia, not a "People-Pleasingedia" (or whatever). We should stick to these names as they do not conflict with other names. There is no common name, so choosing one of these "Google names" would sort of be "unfair" to the other, fairly equallly used names. United States Man (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the point at all. The standard is notability, not officiality. And I'll ask, What specific, equally used name, is being given short shrift? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Blizzard 2013, Blizzard of 2013, Mega Storm 2013, February 8-9 2013 Nor'easter, February Nor'easter, Super Mega Nor'easter of Doom 2013 (rediculous, but a name), Nor'easter 2013, and countless articles calling it Nor'easter just to name a few. Naming it "Winter Storm Nemo" would be like putting them all in a hat and drawing one out. It would be better (since there is no common name) to have a name that doesn't favor some sources and not the others. I know WP:COMMONNAME could apply here, but WP:IAR could apply as well. United States Man (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment for what it's worth. The Smithsonian refers to it as #Nemo on their twitter account.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter and Facebook really shouldn't be used to source these things as people tend to get of topic and post nonsense. United States Man (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter is a pretty poor source for notability, especially in this case. Much of the Nemo-related tweeting is unrelated parody, and it seems half the reason it took off was due to the obvious association with Finding Nemo. Gizmodo has a roundup of some of the worst: [9] Crap like "woot where is Dory!!!" makes it appear people are more interested in the name than in the storm, at least on Twitter... – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 01:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not being used to establish notability of the article topic, it is being used to determine the common name of the topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...it's being used to establish notability of the purported common name. Just pointing out further that Twitter trending on this isn't a good source for establishing that. (And, like others have said, this event does not HAVE a common name...just a nickname that many people are using.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If most people are using a certain name to refer to a storm, then that is, by definition, its common name, even if it's just a "nickname" and not the "official" name. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support for all the reasons given above. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 01:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose based on news articles like this from the LA Times. Also the first name I heard for this out west was Charlotte which apparently is sourced to news agency which has been doing this for over 40 years]. So given other choices and the resistance for the source of this name, leave it as it. If later it is clear that there is an official or a single common name then move it. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that and agree, the title is controversial and while wikipedia is not censored you have to consider the weight it adds (POV). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The name Charlotte has no claim to the “common name” title, and is not a worthy comparison. There are “other” names for this storm, as there are for any storm. But Nemo is actually used and acknowledged by people across the internet. Nemo has been used by many reliable news agencies, for example, Huff Post, as shown above. Charlotte has not. The LA Times article, and a similar one in the NY Times were written for today’s papers. Notably, most news outlets did not adopt Nemo until today. I would wait until tomorrow to confirm what stance of these papers are on the subject. Regardless, common name is common name, never mind what some ivory tower meteorologists say. While anecdote is fairly useless here, I will say that as a resident of Providence in Rhode Island Nemo now appears to be ubiquitous in common discourse. If only because a name makes it easier to talk about…in some way. I shall remind the reader that I did not want TWC names adopted. I thought the idea was a marketing ploy. Nevertheless, in this case, Nemo has taken over. And so, the article should be titled accordingly. RGloucester (talk) 02:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The title Winter Storm Nemo is still controversial and more sources use the term "Nor-easter" when referring to the storm. Social websites like Twitter and Facebook as I have said before are also not reliable sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And exactly when did 'the internet' become a reliable source? You seem very willing to place the quality of the internet above respected news organizations. While typing this, the storm was on the news. It was referred to as the noreaster and not by any manufactured name! Vegaswikian (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I have said it before and I will say it again: TWC does not have the authority to name storms. The coverage that I know of on the major TV networks outside of TWC has been parody. Much if it is probably just hype because the name TWC picked happens to also be the name of a Disney character. There is hype because people think the name is funny, that is it. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say this for the...who the hell knows time. The Weather Channel has every right in the world to name winter storms. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We all have the authority to name a storm. If the name one of us chooses becomes what is commonly used, then it goes beyond whoever named it. This is not about what is official. It is about what people call the storm. Wikipedia bases titles on common names, not official names. Perhaps read J.L. Austin? RGloucester (talk) 02:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much non-responsive. NWS has the authority to name storms for use in governmental products. NWS has no authority over Wikipedia and the standards under WP:COMMONNAME stress that notability of name is what's important, not authority of given name. NWS is one reliable source and can help confer notability, but it is not the only source and it cannot simply filibuster notability. Under what, in WP:COMMONNAME delegates naming authority of wikipedia websites to a governmental agency? The question isn't if the TWC name for a winter storm is proper, the question is whether it's *notable*.CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the common name used by the media is "Noreaster" Not Nemo - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, look at the list of names I provided above. Most of them have one thing in common: Nor'easter (not Nemo). United States Man (talk) 02:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, we can't just name it "Nor'easter". The name "Winter Storm Nemo" is being used far more than the current "February 2013 nor'easter". Nemo has been called just that by emergency officials, including the governors of the impacted regions, major news outlets, and several websites. Winter Storm Nemo is the most reasonable name at this time. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The common name used by the media is by no means “Noreaster”. There is a great mix. Some use Nemo, others say generic “blizzard” or “nor’easter”. Nemo has been gaining traction, and still is, in both journalistic and social media. It has become the common distinguishing name for this storm. RGloucester (talk) 02:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like some Wikipedians think otherwise. I don't see a consensus, therefore, I do not foresee a page move. United States Man (talk) 02:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support. It's become a common name and numerous media outlets have been using the name. It's become apparent on Twitter that a majority of people are referring to the storm as Nemo. Dmarquard (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, when you can write the article in 140 characters, I might consider Nemo for the name. 02:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - I’d like to put forward this article as demonstration of my point: "Don’t call that storm Nemo? Twitter begs to differ”. RGloucester (talk) 02:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Twitter is not a reliable source when it comes to the average person See also: WP:TWITTER - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That doesn't demonstrate your point. To me, it tells what is wrong with it. United States Man (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well according to what links are okay to use, tweets by officials or notable people can be used but in general not the best as they are self published. In any case the source that RGloucester provided goes to say that media has snubbed the name nemo. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Exactly, RGloucester must not have read through that article. United States Man (talk) 03:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have read it. Keep in mind that this article was published eight hours ago, before many outlets had switched. Not to mention it was probably written earlier than that. The point is, most “people” are calling it “Nemo” (and many, many news outlets as well). Anyway, as far as WP:TWITTER, that is for sourcing article CONTENT, not for determining article titles. In this case, common name trumps that point. The name is not POV. It simply happens to be what many people are calling a storm, regardless of origin. RGloucester (talk) 04:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Here is something I think of when finding a common name: Is the media outlet using the name or just referring to others who use it and/or referring to an online video from another source? Is the name being used on Twitter or Facebook by your average Joe or on blogs and chatrooms? (Not reliable) Is the name POV or not and would it add weight if it is used for the article? Those are the things running through my mind when I think of WP:COMMONNAME. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose - due to the numerous reasons mentioned above, although the NWS refusal should be enough, we have to deal with proper information, not the quirks of a weather TV channel. Skycycle (talk) 04:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the NWS nor TWC dictate Wikipedia's article naming policy. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support for the move, since a google search yielded 96 million hits for Nemo. It doesn't matter who named it or who recognized it. Nemo is its common name. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Again please see: WP:GYNOT. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop confusing the subject here. This is not about establishing notability, this is about common name/article title, and google results are very much demonstrative in what a subject's common name is. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We've used google hits for years within the meteorology and TC projects when determining names for things. I only hear this system being called Winter Storm Nemo and the Northeast Blizzard. Right now, none of those words are in the article title, so the title needs to be changed. HPC advisories generally describe the weather event; they don't "name" it. Thegreatdr (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay well taking out wikipedia and using google for the term "Blizzard of 2013" nets 350,000,000 results. (Google) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - WHDH just noted that the storm now officially meets the criteria for a blizzard (the visibility requirement hadn't been met yet earlier), and stated that it's "officially the Blizzard of 2013"; their chevron has "Blizzard 2013" stuck on it now. Now that it is an actual blizzard, it's worth keeping an eye on whether more outlets start referring to it as such. (There do seem to be many more hits for "Blizzard of 2013" and "Blizzard 2013" than a few hours ago.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blizzard of 2013 is what its being called here on the news (I am from around Boston) That and this is the first blizzard we have had in 8 years which also adds notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then we should rename the article Blizzard of 2013, until another blizzard in the northern Plains appears over the next 24 hours? At least Nemo is unique and not likely to change for the rest of the year. If people decide Blizzard should be in the title (which is fine by me), it would need to be called The Northeastern United States Blizzard of February 8-9, 2012, which seems quite long when a nice alternative is available. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may have also noted “Blizzard Nemo" [10]. RGloucester (talk) 05:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose - It's getting a bit ridiculous that we have to have this discussion for each new storm. We don't know if TWC's naming system is going to catch on; many news organizations and the NWS refuse to recognize it. At most it should be mentioned, unbolded, in the lead. It's an unofficial commercial name, and the consensus so far has been to not use the TWC's name as the title. I see no reason to change that for this storm, and I think we need to put a moratorium on these discussions on each new storm that occurs... it's starting to borderline forum shopping. Inks.LWC (talk) 09:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an “unofficial commercial name". There is no such thing as an “official" name in this case. Anyone can name a storm. If people start using that name, regardless of origin, it becomes the name of the storm that is remembered. This is no longer TWC's name, but the name used by many news outlets, social media, and many people. It is the one distinguishing name for this storm that sticks out. One must do this on a storm by storm basis until one sees if TWC’s naming sticks. But, in this case, unlike with Athena or whatever, the name HAS stuck and hence should be used. RGloucester (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: This move request smacks of Wikipedia:Recentism. The storm is a current event, and who knows what it will be called in two weeks, two months or two years time? By all means create a redirect, but leave the article title unchanged for a few days (or preferably weeks) and see what name reliable sources then use. Skinsmoke (talk) 10:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose, mostly per Inks.LWC. The Weather Channel's naming system is highly controversial, especially in meteorological circles. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 12:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the wikipedia policy cite? "NWS doesn't like" isn't part of WP:COMMONNAME and not part of any Wikipedia standard, as far as I can tell.CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - it's silly, but it seems to be the WP:COMMONNAME. I don't believe we have any guidelines saying unofficial names for storms shouldn't be used if they enter common usage; we've got articles like Hurricane Bawbag, for instance... Robofish (talk) 13:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its not the Common name though, more sources are using Blizzard of 2013 that name is also much more neutral. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose per discussion last year and the NWS. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And what wiki rule does this fall under? The standard is what the common name is, not what the righteous name is. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me how Winter Storm Nemo is the common name? I want you to do an advanced google search and tell me what you see. This has been dubbed a Blizzard. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - It's pretty commonly used in the news.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - MSNBC has today started using “Nemo” [11].RGloucester (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course they would use it. TWC and MSNBC are owned by the same company. United States Man (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support- The name "Nemo" has been commonly used throughout all news sources, while no news sources have used the name "February 2013 Nor'easter" Camyoung54 talk 16:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Blizzard 2013, Blizzard of 2013, Mega Storm 2013, February 8-9 2013 Nor'easter, February Nor'easter, Super Mega Nor'easter of Doom 2013 (rediculous, but a name), Nor'easter 2013, and countless articles calling it Nor'easter just to name a few other names. Naming it "Winter Storm Nemo" would be like putting them all in a hat and drawing one out. It would be better (since there is no common name) to have a name that doesn't favor some sources and not the others. I know WP:COMMONNAME could apply here, but WP:IAR could apply as well. (Note: This is the same comment posted above) United States Man (talk) 16:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of those names have the same currency as Nemo. Just because one person calls a storm “Mega Storm 2013”, that doesn’t make it important here. What matters here is whether many people use a name to describe something. In this case, Nemo wins. All names are not created equal. Nemo is actually used on a large scale. Those others are not. That’s a stupid comparison used by people who simply don’t accept the name Nemo has taken on a life of its own, apart from TWC. RGloucester (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Nemo" is the most common name used to describe this storm. I agree with RGloucester, just because one person uses a name once doesn't make it important and overall "Nemo" is the most used name, and per WP:COMMONNAME "Nemo" should be used to name this storm. Camyoung54 talk 17:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that it is the most popular name (and a Google search is not a reliable source)? United States Man (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that people are just basically saying "look at it trend on Twitter! look at all those Google hits!", which doesn't mean anything for reasons pointed out multiple times in this discussion. I don't see how you can say "Nemo wins" without anything more than vague assertions that it's supposedly the most popular name. How are you reaching this conclusion? For what it's worth, some Boston-area TV stations seem to like Blizzard of 2013 at the moment, but I wouldn't support moving to that either...since just like "Nemo" (which seems to have gone down in popularity since yesterday if anything), it's too early to tell if that's going to be any sort of lasting name. Maybe it will, maybe it won't, but for now we have a perfectly descriptive name and appropriate redirects. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 17:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict)Even on Ghits the name Blizzard of 2013 is being used more. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of news sources that use "Nemo" NPR [12], New York Daily News [13], MSNBC [14], The Daily Beast [15], Huffington Post [16], Los Angeles Times [17], CNBC [18]. Camyoung54 talk 17:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So? That doesn't make it the most popular name. United States Man (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of sources that dont use the name "Nemo": ABC News [19], CBS [20], CNN [21], BBC [22], Reuters [23] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then give an example of a name that has more news sources using that name then "Nemo" Camyoung54 talk 17:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, there is no one popular name. So that is why we can't just pick one. They are used fairly equally. United States Man (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)And I could go list out a dozen news sources that use "Blizzard of 2013", but that wouldn't make that the name either. (Not to mention, your NPR article is about the hype surrounding names like "Nemo", and your LA Times article is actually about a dance-related meme that just mentions "Nemo" as an aside.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 17:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then what do you consider the common name to be? In my opinion "Nemo" is the WP:COMMONNAME Camyoung54 talk 17:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NPOV. United States Man (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no common name at the moment. It's impossible to determine whether "Nemo" has enough usage compared to other names to be the common name, and there are POV issues surrounding using it when it appears to just be used by a minority of sources, and with other sources refuting the use of the name. And for all we know, "Blizzard of 2013" might be getting more usage now. It actually looks kinda even between the two to me, but that's impossible to say with any certainty at all. Thus, no common name, and a generic article title that matches other nor'easters. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 17:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, right now there is no common name, however "February 2013 nor'easter" or "Blizzard of 2013" should not be the name, because there could still be a blizzard this season greater than this one, even one this month, but the name "Nemo" only applies to this storm. Camyoung54 talk 19:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The term Blizzard though is being used to describe the storm. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that, however I was saying that there is still a possibility of another blizzard or nor'easter this season. Camyoung54 talk 19:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In which case the name would be changed to reflect the exact dates. Such as February 7-9, 2013 nor'easter. United States Man (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, this storm is being described as a blizzard. Camyoung54 talk 19:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(break)That makes no difference. It is also described as a nor'easter. United States Man (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Per all the reasons I stated above during the initial discussion, I support this move. It's the right thing to do, keeping in line with Wikipedia's policies. It may not be recognized by the NWS, but that's irrelevant because Winter Storm Nemo is the common name. Jared (t)  18:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you not read the discussion? There is no common name. United States Man (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your differing interpretation of the facts. Jared (t)  20:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Storm naming controversy. Have at it folks. Should we copy/paste this whole section to the new article?--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • So that being true (NPOV) and even though nemo is ‘’*'NOT the commonname as pointed out on google you still support a title change? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please explain what exactly you think the NPOV violation is? It is simply a name. A common one, at that, despite what you say. The nonsense about the NWS is not POV. It is Wikipedia which says to use common names and not make political statements. In fact, your position is the real NPOV violation. You won’t accept a common name as a title because it is not “official”. You are making a political statement, saying that a common name is “not good enough” because it is not what the NWS calls it. Look at Hurricane Bawbag. RGloucester (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Naming this "Winter Storm nemo" also makes a political statement, in support of The Weather Channel, there are more sources out there calling this a blizzard and other things than sources calling this "Nemo". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose. We have never let the trending name on twitter determine the name of the article. Otherwise February 5–6, 2010 North American blizzard would be called "Snowmageddon" and North American blizzard of 2009 would be called "Snowpocalypse." Snowmageddon was even the name referred to by Obama, which in my mind, is much more notable than TWC calling this one Nemo. demeteloaf (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither of those storms were ever really called those names on a large scale (by many media organizations, like Huff Post). Those names, as well, are generic, and might even potentially be applied to this storm. They are not names, really, more descriptors. This is not about TWC calling the storm Nemo, but the fact that many other media outlets and many people have called it that. It is simple, precise. It is not generic. And it is pretty much the “common name” above all else. His Honor Mayor Bloomberg called this storm Nemo. Some might argue that the Mayor of New York has more social-cultural power than the president. RGloucester (talk) 23:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think you remember how ubiquitous "Snowmageddon" really was. Because it was definitely the common name on a large scale, including many media organizations, like the huffington post... demeteloaf (talk) 00:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is odd that I was present for that storm, yet do not even remember the name “Snowmageddon”. Regardless, that Huff Post article is only about the name. In this case, the name is actually used to describe the storm. Example: Huff Post has a whole dedicated page to the storm, titled “Nemo” [24]. In this case, the name has taken on a life of its own as an actual name, not just a nickname. RGloucester (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • And there's an exact same page for the 2010 storm, with a title "Snowmageddon" [25]. (EDIT: nevermind, only the first two posts on that page are from the 2010 storm) It blew up on twitter, and was definitely the common name at the time. Basically, I have yet to see a coherent argument for why this page should be renamed to Winter Storm Nemo, that wouldn't apply exactly the same to the 2010 storm article being renamed "Snowmageddon". In both cases, a private organization decided on a cute name, and it blew up on twitter and became the dominant name for the storm. But it shouldn't be the official descriptive name for the storm here. demeteloaf (talk) 04:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The met hist section is missing information on the cold low coming out of the midwest that combined with the subtropical low. It currently only contains subtropical low information. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link for this? As for the combination, that hasn't happened yet. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[26] - There's already some in the impact section, which mentions snowfalls in Wisconsin, definitely the storm coming out of the midwest that's combining with the subtropical low. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CNN has been droning on about it for several days. About the two lows, one from the west, the other from the south, and the timing of the merger, whether it would be at NYC or Boston... -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe some of the LONG Lede should be put here? Kennvido (talk) 02:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is lacking on coverage outside the US. Since the storm is also affecting Canada, there should be information about that. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Post several links on here about effects in Canada and it will be added. Otherwise, be patient and wait a few days for everything to get sorted out. United States Man (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Major Canadian news sites: [27], [28], [29], [30] (weather news) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added in various Canadian info, but I'm not clear whether Ontario belongs in the lead. Was that northern storm system a nor'easter yet when it hit Canada? I'd say whether or not Ontario is covered more prominently depends on that; after all, we're not covering places like Illinois and Michigan as much as the places getting hit by the full nor'easter, which seems appropriate. (It looks like Atlantic Canada will take a hit from the nor'easter after it moves through New England, though.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Hydrometeorological Prediction Center is describing it as the "Great Lakes and Northeast Major Winter Storm" in its advisories: [31]. Maybe we should be renaming it the article along those lines ("February 2013 winter storm" or similar) and covering the effects in IL/MI/etc and Canada more? – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a 4ft storm surge and flooding in the streets of Shelbourne, Nova Scotia (CTV News) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References? I assume the storm is doing SOMETHING more than just randomly dropping snow now that it's headed north, but we don't seem to have a lot of folks from up north contributing...so details are a bit scarce and definitely should be expanded on. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 03:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check the four news sites I listed earlier for Canada, such as the top story on one of them [32] -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 10:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we patch up the missing reference and submit this at WP:ITN/C? Jehochman ^Talk 03:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well the name remains in dispute other than that sure this would be newsworthy as it is impacting so many. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Getting more visibility to help fill out the impact sections better would certainly help as well. I cleaned up the missing Canadian citations for the most part, the other uncited bit can just be removed if that's all that's required to submit it for WP:ITN. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 03:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is now sourced =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI you have an ongoing nom on ITN/C. You'll need to fix the orange tags before we can post. --IP98 (talk) 01:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...which are now gone. :) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there is a guideline suggesting alternate names be at the top (is there one? a change entry suggested there is...), it's horrid clutter up there. Especially since it just keeps getting longer and longer. That section really ought to stay at the bottom so the article is readable, and so the focus isn't on whether or not Finding Nemo is relevant to the storm's name and other associated miscellany. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 05:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support move to bottom This is getting crazy the first info should be info reguarding the storm and not it's name. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, alternative names should be in the lead section, per WP:LEAD "significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph." And generally when there is a "name" or "etymology" section in an article, it's the very first section after the lead (example 1, example 2). I see no reason to break with standard Wikipedia formatting here. The section should be at the top. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note "should be." It would be impossible to include the names in the lead and still include the contextual information that's grown into the "Name" section; that can't apply when a separate section is used. From MOS:LEADALT: "Alternatively, if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section; it is recommended that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves." There's no clarification on *where* that section should go, so bottom seems like the better choice since it's more reader-friendly. (Counterexample: November 2012 nor'easter#Name.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 05:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Logically, if alternative names are to be mentioned in the lead as early as possible, then the "Names" or "Eytmology" sections should be located at the very top. There is a very good reason for this. You include alternative names early on in the article, because if a reader knows a topic by one name (such as "Nemo") they may not be sure they have arrived at the article that they are looking for until they see that name. This is standard Wikipedia practice, and if you want to break from it then the burden is on you to articulate a good reason to do so. And "it looks cluttered" is not a good reason. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that reasoning, and in general I'd agree the names should be nice and visible for the reason you give. Unfortunately, in this case, the section is long enough that it pushes other information further down. "It looks cluttered" is valid when it means the reader is barraged with trivia over the name, rather than having information about the storm be presented more readably. (Really, we shouldn't need a "Name" section at all...that's another reason that moving it back seems reasonable.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 05:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to propose a compromise. If "Winter Storm Nemo" is put back in the lead somewhere so that readers will know they have arrived at the article they are looking for, then I would be okay with moving the "Names" section further down in the article. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually thinking of similar, so I went ahead and did that. (And included "Blizzard of 2013", since that seems to be becoming another popular alternative.) Looks much less cluttered now (though I kinda feel like it's an end run around the naming issue. :) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 06:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The decision based on past storms this season has been to not bold alternative names in the lead. I've changed the article to reflect this. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:LEAD, "If the subject of the page has...more than one name...each additional name should be in boldface on its first appearance." Rreagan007 (talk) 07:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the page does not have more than one name. It has several unofficial nicknames. Not all of them should be bolded, and none of them should be in the lead. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unofficial nicknames are still names. Look, we really need to remember why we do certain things, like bolding the first instance of alternative names for a topic. It is so that readers will be able to quickly identify that they have arrived at the article they are looking for. This is explained well at Wikipedia:Superfluous bolding explained: "the article's title (which is also the name of the article's subject) is mentioned at the earliest natural point in the first sentence of the article. This name and any other names for the topic (synonyms) are bolded to help readers recognize what they are looking at". Rreagan007 (talk) 08:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why it's done, but that's not how any other winter storm article has done it. This is the only article that has the name bolded, if even included at all. The consensus so far has been to only include the name if notable, and then, not to bold it. Inks.LWC (talk) 08:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Naming the winter storms by The Weather Channel is solely a marketing ploy to give viewers a way of relating to the storm name which is then only formally fed by their channel. It's controversial, unrecognized, and it should have absolutely no place in the article. TWC seems to be out of the weather forecasting business and focused on delivering a repackaged NWS forecast as infotainment. Wikipedia should not encourage their branding. Doyna Yar (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is no longer TWC’s name. It is now a common name used by many people, regardless of its original source. It is recognized by the many people and news outlets that use it. It must be included in the lead. Many of the sources cited by this article even use the name. Anything else is absurd. RGloucester (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Break) I think RGloucester's suggestion is "absurd." You can't just put one name in the lead without including the others. And including the others would make it too cluttered to read. There is a perfectly good section at the bottom of the page (It is at the bottom of the page because is has absolutely no meaning to the article and should go after all meaningful content). United States Man (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We're not here to judge what the correct name or what the superior name is. This is an encyclopedia and the standard for naming articles is usage. The NWS has no jurisdiction here, what has jurisdiction is notability and common usage. The motives of TWC are absolutely irrelevant to the discussion and to bring that into a straightforward discussion of notability and common usage is a violation of WP:NPOV. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All I keep hearing is that its the commonname... its the commonname... its the commonname.... its being used by the people, the people have spoken it is the one. Okay show how the name Winter Storm Nemo is the common name now? and not lets say Blizzard of 2013? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blizzard of 2013 is not as common among the populace. Not to mention that we can’t very well use that here, as we don’t know whether another Blizzard will surmount it during this year. That’s would be like naming the article for Evelyn Nesbit “The Trial of the Century”. It simply isn’t feasible. RGloucester (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please define "the populace", and how you determined what is common amongst said populace? Twitter trends and the number of Facebook friends calling it "Nemo" aren't "the populace", but that's what many people seem to be referencing. On the other hand, we can reasonably look at what media organizations (our actual sources!) are using...which seems to be many not using any single name, some calling it "Nemo", and some calling it "the Blizzard of 2013" or similar. (Not to mention multiple media orgs specifically rejecting "Nemo".) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 16:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few of those other names: Blizzard 2013, Blizzard of 2013, Mega Storm 2013, February 8-9 2013 Nor'easter, February Nor'easter, Super Mega Nor'easter of Doom 2013 (rediculous, but a name), and Nor'easter 2013. All of those are the same as Winter Storm Nemo. No one name is being used more than the others. Why doesn't anyone understand this. United States Man (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I keep trying to tell people that the common name being used is not Nemo and there is evidence on Google to back this up. I have yet to see anyone counter this argument or explain how using the name Nemo is not a POV issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said yesterday (the comment is near to top of the proposed move section), this is like politics. Arguing for your side without anything to back you up. United States Man (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve referenced US Man’s comment before. Those names are not used. Nemo is. Nemo is not a POV issue. It is simply a common name. How could it be POV issue? If it is the name used, it is the name used. The nonsense about it being a “commercial name” doesn’t apply, because once people started using it, it became the common name. There are plenty of sources using Nemo, and people using Nemo. We’ ve shown many sources. RGloucester (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the names weren't used then where do you think I got them? Out of the air? United States Man (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On a large scale. They are not used on a large scale. RGloucester (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe some of the LONG lead should be put in the Met History? Kennvido (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of it has been copied over by others and myself, but we could definitely prune more of it now that that's happened. The meteorological history in the lead doesn't seem TOO excessive, but things like watches and warnings don't necessarily need to be up there. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you know it's bad when the lead is excessively longer that meteorological history section. United States Man (talk) 05:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, both sections were horrid until User:TropicalAnalystwx13 kindly dumped a bunch of stuff into the lead. A long lead is at least better than an inadequate one... :) (But there's definitely more to prune from there...editing should hopefully be dying down on the article so it can be worked on more easily; e.g., without people like me making a typo every other save due to not previewing when trying to avoid the 20th edit conflict in a row.) Edit: And I think it's readable now after some pruning, even if it needs some work... – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 06:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great job on the trimming people. Kennvido (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is unreasonably POV to not mention the common name NEMO in the lede.-96.237.4.73 (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When snowfall is cited as reaching ex. 25 inches in an area, how is this being calculated? Does it mean 25 inches in the course of 24 hours or is it meant as 25 inches after duration of the storm? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.59.116.6 (talk) 10:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]