Talk:December 5–6, 2020 nor'easter

RSI 0.398

Created by sockpuppet.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
IMO it's not good to put it in the lede because category 1 begins at RSI 1. We can always mention it in the lede(but not emphasize it given how we literally aren't emphasizing . However, storm formation is possible at any time of the year in 2020 atlantic hurricane season --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Addition of TWC name

@MarioProtIV: WP:TWC clearly states: "There has also been an understood consensus to allow mention of the TWC names within the articles, as long as said names are not part of the article title." Per this, we should have the TWC name in the lead for now, especially given the widespread major impacts this storm had, as well as how Winter Storm Eartha already redirects here. If you would like to exclude it, then you need to build up consensus for that, as current consensus is to include. 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 _(contribs) 17:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Where was the consensus for that line made? I see it was added but I cannot find the discussion (specifically from the February discussion) that came to this consensus. IMO, we do not need to include it for every single system. We are not TWC, and only when a storm is big enough in a region does the name get mentioned outside of TWC space (Uri, Nemo, Grayson (I think), Jonas, Juno, Stella, etc.) Otherwise we shouldn’t really mention it as it undermines WP:NPOV IMO. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 18:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@MarioProtIV: not sure when the consensus happened, but I know it did since it's mentioned in WP:TWC. And all of the storms you removed the names from were major. Winter Storm John (the new year's one) got an RSI. That alone says something. But note that not all major winter storms have a high RSI (they can be ice storms). John was definitely major enough to have a TWC name attached to it, as was Dane. I agree that Quade wasn't that major, but the TWC names need to stay on John, Dane, and Eartha's articles. 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 _(contribs) 18:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

RSI does not really equal anything in this case, especially in the case of the later three as TWC is pretty much the only one that mentioned those names. All other sources regarding them as “winter storm” or “nor’easter”, with no mention of the TWC name. As such if we were to keep the names I strongly think that would be undermining WP:NPOV and giving undue weight to a name with little mention outside of the network that names them. In some cases, the mainstream media will pick up on the names of major nor’easters or blizzards (this and this for the 2016 blizzard/Jonas, this for the 2017 blizzard/Stella, this from the 2013 blizzard/Nemo, Governor Murphy of NJ referring to the name of Orlena itself, the government mentioning the name itself in Uri’s case, and so forth). In those cases the name can stay. The storms you mention do not bring up any other hits from MSM and as such I strongly feel they should not be mentioned unless they have enough weight given to them by reliable sources outside of TWC. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 18:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

There is no consensus for or against inclusion of the TWC names on all articles. But there is absolutely no reason to bar the inclusion of the names at all. The Weather Channel's names are clearly the common name in most cases, and we are obligated to include all of the common names in the lead. Every major winter storm that had significant in impacts, received an official RSI value, or had its TWC name mentioned in at least one other outlet all should have their TWC names mentioned in the lead. As for the other articles, we can mention them, but we are not required to. There is no hard rule saying that we can or can't use the names in those cases. As long as we don't use them for article titles. BTW, ENOUGH OF THESE EDIT WARS!!! This is ownership behavior, which is strictly prohibited on Wikipedia. None of you have the right to bar others from making changes to other articles, and we certainly do not need to hold a discussion on every single little change. If I see one of these edit wars again, I WILL personally file a report on an admin noticeboard. Consider this a warning. Enough is enough. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME holds zero ground if the only outlet that mentions it is TWC. I strongly still think we are granting undue weight to names not mentioned elsewhere. Pinging @Master of Time: @Jason Rees: @Knowledgekid87: for their opinions as they seem to have had some opinion about this in the past (in the February discussion too). --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 21:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't remember ever seeing any such consensus being reached. While it can admittedly be a common name on occasion, being a significant storm does not necessitate that, nor does usage by a single other media outlook. No special treatment to TWC on this issue -- standard rules as to whether it is used commonly enough to be mentioned should be applied case-by-case. Master of Time (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I think we should keep in mind WP:MOS:LEAD where it says

The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article.

It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.

I think it would be best to have some kind of an explanation in the article's body regarding the naming. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

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