Talk:March 1–3, 2018 nor'easter

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

Max wind in info box needs to NOT be mountain gust[edit]

When NWS Boston releases the final Local Storm Report/PNS, someone NEEDS to remove the BS 102mph atop a mountain in NC.

Mountains in the Appalachian range always get extremely strong winds even from everyday non-events e.g. Mount Washington, NH gusts over 100mph 1 in every 4 days in the winter.

The strongest actual gust from this system was 97mph at COAST in Wellfleet, MA (you'll see it in NWS statement) and currently 93mph at Barnstable, MA in current NWS statement.

Someone please fix this ridiculous inclusion of a mountain-top wind gust or be prepared to do so soon. Thank you. 75.68.35.78 (talk) 03:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing[edit]

My friend at school said someone died on US Route 22 in New Jersey. How come it’s not put in there? WiiLove Animals (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@WiiLove Animals: a "friend from school" doesn't constitute a reliable source. If you can find a reliable source that mentions this death, then by all means add it in. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 May 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus, and I don't see another relist making consensus any clearer. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

– Matching comma. When a year is offset by a comma before, it needs a comma after, according to all English grammar guides. An alternative would be to remove the commas before the year, if people prefer that. Dicklyon (talk) 03:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per MOS:DATECOMMA. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. LK (talk) 10:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the style of double comma use in titles is rare and not natural in American WP:ENGVAR. This change to two articles would make them inconsistent with others in Category:Nor'easters and many other event articles. --Netoholic @ 14:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not at all rare in American English, and is prescribed in every English grammar that I've seen. Do you know any books that say this mismatched-comma style is OK? Dicklyon (talk) 01:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you reconcile your position with MOS:DATECOMMA, Netoholic? MOS:DATECOMMA provides:

    Dates in month–day–year format require a comma after the day, as well as after the year, unless followed by other punctuation. In both cases, the last element is treated as parenthetical.

    If your issue is with that provision of the guideline in general and you are not arguing this particular instance to be exceptional amongst usages in American English, the correct venue for that discussion would be WT:MOS, not here, because "[c]onsensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." 142.160.89.97 (talk) 02:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Our MoS only covers article prose. It (and every external MoS I've checked on this issue) only covers handling these within full sentences. I have never seen any manual of style which gives a specific guideline for handling these in the titles of works. Overall, WP:TITLES is our policy for handling titles, not the MoS - and the notice on the very top of this move discussion says to please "base arguments on article title policy". My contention in this RM is that it picks only two articles out and makes them inCONSISTENT and unNATURAL, (and slightly less CONCISE by one character). -- Netoholic @ 02:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Netoholic: Our MoS only covers article prose. Do you have a source for this assertion?
    It (and every external MoS I've checked on this issue) only covers handling these within full sentences. To which external manuals of style are you referring? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 02:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to repeat myself in two places. I've stated my concern that this RM is not CONSISTENT, etc. with other similar articles. In that sense, it is somewhat malformed/incomplete and should probably be held until the MOS RFC linked below completes. I've answered your question there. No more pings here please. -- Netoholic @ 02:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In that sense, it is somewhat malformed/incomplete and should probably be held until the MOS RFC linked below completes. The idea that we can't bring articles into accordance with the MOS whenever there are ongoing discussions about amending the MOS is laughable at best.
    And you still haven't indicated which external style guides you're referring to, Netoholic. You can hardly cite sources as authorities for your argument while refusing to disclose which sources those are. So are there actual external style guides that you've checked and that back you up on this? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 02:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Regardless of what happens in this RM, we must handle such cases consistently. You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Matching commas on attributive nouns in titles. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support or move to Nor'easter of March 1–3, 2018 / Nor'easter of March 6–8, 2018: Violating MOS:DATECOMMA makes Wikipedia look unprofessional. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Pettifoggery. Current version is perfectly clear, and common enough. If you want to play Dueling Rules, well WP:AT -- which is a policy and not just a guideline, and so trumps WP:MOSCOMMA -- gives the Five Virtues of article titles, one of which is "Conciseness". Being concise includes not unnecessarily lengthening titles by embarnacling them with assorted extra punctuation marks because of some mere guideline.
"March 1–3, 2018 nor'easter" is a unitary name. It is the designation -- the name -- of a storm. It has three punctuation marks in it (a comma, a hyphen, and an apostrophe), but so? Lots of unitary names have punctuation in them. The reader perceives "March 1–3, 2018 nor'easter" as a unitary name, and will not swoon if it is not followed by a comma or other punctuation mark.
There's no "right" or "wrong" of this. It's just a matter of being clear. Current title is perfectly clear. Herostratus (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You say "It is the designation -- the name -- of a storm". But who made up this designation? We did! Why not make up one without a grammatical error instead? Dicklyon (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We did. Hmnh, well, either way is OK for the body text, I don't care. If you want to change it in the body text, whatever. But it is not helpful in the title.
Generally, I would drop the term "grammatical error". It's kind of a 20th century concept -- early 20th century at that. Grammars nowadays are more descriptive.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Herostratus (talk • contribs) 21:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose – No, this kind of comma use as suggested is not used in American English (I should know - I am American). Yes, Americans use commas to separate objects in lists (also known as the serial comma), but since there is no list in the article titles, there should be no additional commas. Additionally, not a single article on this site uses this kind of formatting in this context. Since the proposed changes would be grammatically incorrect, even by American English standards, I cannot support this proposal. Also, the current (present) titles are already good the way they are (and they are already used in dozens of other articles), so there's absolutely no reason to change the formatting at all. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink, Yellow Evan, Master of Time, Jax 0677, MarioProtIV, Cyclonebiskit, United States Man, and Knowledgekid87: Pinging other American editors (who are likely well-versed in American English) with an interest in this topic to generate a more clear consensus. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 23:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I dispute this notion that omitting the comma after an MDY date is generally considered acceptable in American English. My impression is that the omission is distracting and gives an impression of a lack of professionalism. There are quite a few well-known writing style guides for American English (AP, CMOS, MLA, Strunk & White, etc.). Do any of them support omitting the second comma? Does The New York Times omit them? How about The Atlantic and Harper's? —BarrelProof (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Lack of professionalism"... well, but we're not professionals. That is both our glory and our shame. Our shame is, we don't have a Chief Editor to tell us to write a certain way and fire us if we don't. Our glory is, we don't have a Chief Editor to tell us to write a certain way and fire us if we don't. Because we don't have a Chief Editor, we are going to have to do things differently than the New York Times or Harpers or Britannica does. We are never going to be as consistent on style and punctuation as Britannica. On the other hand, we're a lot more extensive and cheaper to use than Brittanica. We are those things because we are not professionals. So, you have to take the good with the bad. Trying to be the Atlantic or Britannica is trying to be something we're not. It's not worth overly worrying about. Let the volunteers write as they wish, within reason, and accept that consistency is not our strong point. Herostratus (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When we are explicitly choosing between wanting our Encyclopedia to be more or less professional, I think I prefer the former. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"More professional" means paid writers rather than volunteers. Certainly that's how Britannica operates, and so did Encarta, Americana, Colliers, and all the other professional-looking encyclopedias. If you think the Wikipedia should turn to that mode, well, even if you're right it'd be some heavy lifting indeed to get there. (However, I would say that of all the arguments for Wikipedia shifting to an employee-written model, "Then all the articles will use commas the same way" is one of the weaker ones. Herostratus (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, no. I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing here. The proposed titles are definitely not proper American English. Allow me to explain. To use the comma again in the title, you would need a list. However, the current titles are not lists, so we can't use the extra commas. The "usages" by other people that you're referring to, I believe, is the use of the comma after the year to separate the date/phrase in a sentence. In a sentence, yes, we would use a comma after the year (or whatever date unit is involved) to separate the time phrase from the rest of the sentence. However, this rule only applies to phrases/sentences, not simple titles. Neither of the article titles under discussion are phrases or sentences, so using an extra comma (which isn't even required to begin with) would be improper English grammar. I hope this clears up any confusion. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, more like parentheses than like a list, according to the Chicago Manual of Style. Their FAQ says here: "The commas are like parentheses here, so it doesn't make sense to have only one." The Associated Press appears to agree, according to this. I didn't find the New York Times Style Guide itself, but here is an article published there that says the comma after the year is needed. Grammarly also prescribes the comma here. However, it seems that this recommendation is not entirely universal – I found a second-hand report saying that a 2004 style guide by M. Strumpf and A. Douglas (The Grammar Bible) and a 2009 style guide by B. Garner (Garner's Modern American Usage) say it can be omitted. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your examples have absolutely nothing to do with the rules I just mentioned. Those instances apply to conventional phrasing & sentences, not simple titles. Can you actually find a relevant example where the application is identical to what you're actually suggesting? I highly doubt that any exist within any reputable sources - though if any do exist, they're probably grammatical errors. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 06:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe ordinary English grammar and formatting should apply to titles (both complex ones and simple ones) as well as to sentences within an article (provided that the title is intended to be in English, of course) – at least aside from well-known deviations that are generally applied to titles, such as not requiring a subject, verb, object structure and not using terminal punctuation. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
English is not a language with simple, straightforward rules (e.g. non-sentence titles are an exception to a number of grammar rules), just like WP:IAR. If we were to apply the grammar conventions that are not used in most types of titles, we would have to rename January 2013 Northwest Pacific cyclone to January 2013, Northwest Pacific cyclone, January 2018 North American blizzard to January 2018, North American blizzard, 1900 Galveston hurricane to 1900, Galveston hurricane, and so on. Not only do these "new titles" sound wrong, but they are outright grammatically incorrect. Why? Because those titles are neither sentences nor lists. I understand your wish for Wikipedia articles to have formatting consistency, but the proposed changes are just wrong, not to mention that the articles in question are already consistent and conform to American English rules. I don't know if I can explain it in a simpler way than this. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 03:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see how that comment makes sense. The rule is to put a comma after the year for an MDY date (unless other punctuation is present), in order to match the comma that precedes the year. But none of those examples use MDY dates. I also don't understand the use of the phrase "not used in most types of titles". —BarrelProof (talk) 16:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@LightandDark2000: How do you reconcile your position with MOS:DATECOMMA? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 05:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That policy really says nothing about titles like these. Anyway, accuracy and precision take precedence over any potentially flawed policy practices (if any exist concerning these titles). I'll explain one more time:
  • The rules only apply in these cases: On March 1–3, 2018, the nor'easter..., On March 1, 2, and 5, the blizzard unleashed unprecedented..., The January 2018, March 2019, and April 2019 winter storms were some of the worst..., On the morning of Tuesday, September 11, 2001, 19 al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four airliners.... This is because the examples mentioned just earlier are phrases or sentences. However, these are not used in the current titles.
  • The grammar rules DO NOT APPLY in these cases: March 1–3, 2018 nor'easter, November 2014 Bering Sea cyclone, September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. This is because these examples are neither sentences nor phrases. Simple titles, such as the ones used in the articles under discussion, do not use the same grammar rules as normal sentences.
Please re-read my earlier comments again, or consult an experienced American English teacher (or professor) if you still don't understand. I really do not wish to repeat myself again. If you don't understand the application of American English grammar in the specific cases mentioned here, you really shouldn't be arguing anything on this page. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 05:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are problems with the examples you listed. November 2014 Bering Sea cyclone does not use an MDY date, so it is off-topic – MOS:DATECOMMA does not say to include a comma when the day of the month is not included. There is no article entitled "September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks", so that is not a valid example either. The third example you provided is this article, so it is a circular example. I'm sure you can find examples of Wikipedia articles that violate the guideline if you look for them, but those are not proper examples. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose – pretty much the same reasons as Light. Grammatically speaking, adding a comma just doesn’t make sense because in several news stories where they have mentioned the year there has not been a comma after it. Changing it here would be grammatically wrong and frankly not worth it. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 01:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The title is fine as it is, and is consistent with other similar titles such as March 18–20, 1956 nor'easter and March 18–21, 1958 nor'easter. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If this is true, then one of the Five Virtues of WP:AT -- a policy, not a mere guideline -- is in play: Consistency. Herostratus (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Separating the date and "nor'easter" with a comma, without another comma and something else after "nor'easter" feels awkward to me. MOS:DATECOMMA says He set October 1, 2011, as the deadline for Chattanooga, Oklahoma, to meet his demands. is correct. Good. I does not say that "He set October 1, 2011, as the deadline for Chattanooga." is correct. Without "to meet his demands" you lose that comma and "He set October 1, 2011 as the deadline for Chattanooga." seems right to me. But I'm no expert on these sorts of nuances. I know that even experts can disagree though. Status quo, and don't waste the gnomes' time with "fixing" stuff like this, Jr. wbm1058 (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress[edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:March_1–3,_2018_nor%27easter&oldid=1208790740"