Talk:Winter storm naming in the United States: Difference between revisions

Weather Start‑class High‑importance

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. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Start‑class Low‑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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Why is Bawbag included here? There is really not relation between this and TWC incident. Furthermore, the article is wrong. Bawbag was in December 2011, not January 2012. If this article does survive, I think that needs to be removed. RGloucester (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the name thing and while the section does give this article a worldwide aspect the main focus should be the Weather channel controversy to do that though I think the article's name should be changed as just the name "Winter storm naming controversy" can imply to not just the USA. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care either way. We can have it as TWC controversy, or both in plural.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since the info reguarding Bawbag has been removed why is the POV tag still up? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cuz tags are free and some editors like using them. I think it is balanced with opposition to TWC and countering material from TWC et al.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article trumps up the authority of the NWS. RGloucester (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The NWS seems to be the authority until recently. I would assume this is not the first pissing match between them and other services. The more weight we give them now, the more egg on their face if they give in to storm naming by others.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't be concerned with "egg on their face". That smacks of POV, as it's clear that you think that winter storms should be named, and it seems like you're saying that this article should be used as a means of pushing for that. Inks.LWC (talk) 10:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing POV with my sense of humour. I have been laughing at the Weather Wars, (my original title), on and off wp. This whole thing seems to be a big waste of editing and media efforts. I have never seen so many people talk about the weather with such great concern. It seems important enough to warrant an article so I created one. Many want to merge it into the TWC article with lame arguements. The other services are involved as well so should we fork the same material into the other 5 articles as and coatrack them? I had the same lame BS when I created Political gaffe. Everyone wasting editing time discussing politics instead of weather though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except this is ALSO politics, it just happens to be weather-related politics. :) We're discussing how and where an independent organization can insert itself into naming things, and particularly how that can influence the naming of things on Wikipedia itself. (Though naming within Wikipedia fortunately isn't relevant to this particular article, since there's no outside coverage of our lame AfDs, RFCs, and so forth concerning TWC names.) Oh, and you're mistaking "usage" for "involvement." Other organizations simply using names is not the same as endorsing them or being involved with their creation or assignment... That's why NWS hurricane names are assigned to the NWS even if everyone else uses them. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 03:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I for one am glad that the article was created. I just now added the list of names (with ref)... I take no position on the weather wars, but I think that the controversy itself warrants an article, and on a separate note I think that from a stylistic sense, we ought to include the first ever list of TWC-named storms. Peace, MPS (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with United States that the name list is not helpful, the list just adds un-needed clutter and a link can just as easily be easily added in the external links section. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also agree. It's horrible clutter as it is; if it needs to be included, it can be condensed into prose format, and hopefully be moved below the coverage of the actual controversy. Right now the article is unreadable without scrolling, thus unreasonably slanted towards the long list. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 03:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A collapsable section may be another option?--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but then where do you put it the collapsable section? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are suggestions that the article title needs a tweak. I don't think we need to move it again at this point although I agree that it may be changed after the AfD runs its course. If it is merged/deleted then this would be moot. Winter storm naming is one such suggestion. Any others?--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "Winter storm naming in the United States", as this is dealing exclusively with the U.S. But I don't care one way or another on that point. But that's the only other alternative I'd think would be potentially appropriate. I do agree that we should wait until the AfD is over, though. Inks.LWC (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...but it's been removed a couple times. Is there a reason we can't note that? It's obvious a good number were: [1] [2], and others. At the very least, we can note that some of the Twitter references were to Finding Nemo rather than the storm. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 05:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is bizarre that officialdom objects to naming big, distinct, important storms. Calling this one "The Blizzard of 2013" as opposed to something like "Nemo" is potentially dumb -- what if there is a bigger blizzard next week, next month, or in December?

How does NWS refer to this storm internally, now? In the future, afterwards, in retrospect? Should the articles include such information?-96.237.4.73 (talk) 19:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]