Talk:February 2013 North American blizzard/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Move to Winter Storm Nemo

Per a request at WP:AN/RFC, this requested move is closed as no consensus. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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.

  • 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)
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)
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)
  • Support renaming the article based on Wikipedia naming policy WP:COMMONNAME. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
    • 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)
      • (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)
      • (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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
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)
If "Nemo" is being used more than any other name for this storm, then it is by definition the most common name. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • Please see: WP:GYNOT - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
        • 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)
    • Are you arguing that "February 2013 nor'easter" is the common name of the storm? Rreagan007 (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Im arguing that there are more reliable sources that are not using it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
        • Then based on your assessment of reliable sources, what is the common name for this storm? Rreagan007 (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
          • 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)
            • "There is no common name"? Are you sure about that? Rreagan007 (talk) 23:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
              • 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)
                • 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)
                  • 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)
                    • 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)
  • (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)
  • 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)
    • 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 ★ Mailbox ★ 23:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
    • 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)
      • 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)
      • 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
"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)
  • 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)
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)
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: [1] 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)
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)
...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)
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)
  • Strong Support for all the reasons given above. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 01:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
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)
And the common name used by the media is "Noreaster" Not Nemo - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)
          • Exactly, RGloucester must not have read through that article. United States Man (talk) 03:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
            • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
Neither the NWS nor TWC dictate Wikipedia's article naming policy. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Then why are we having a discussion on a name that TWC has came up with. JayJayWhat did I do? 20:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • 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)
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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
You may have also noted “Blizzard Nemo" [2]. RGloucester (talk) 05:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • 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)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
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)
I don't give a damn about WP:COMMONNAME...it's about doing what's sensible for the encyclopedia, and things like renaming this to Nemo or Hurricane Bawbag are just silly. They may be common names (if perhaps not the common name), but always using common names no matter what is not common sense. WP:IAR. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 22:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
You should "give a damn" about Wikipedia article naming policy, because that is what is going to determine the outcome of this move request. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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)
  • Strong oppose per discussion last year and the NWS. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 13:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
  • Support - It's pretty commonly used in the news.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - MSNBC has today started using “Nemo” [3].RGloucester (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
    • 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)
  • 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)
"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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
(Edit conflict)Even on Ghits the name Blizzard of 2013 is being used more. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Examples of news sources that use "Nemo" NPR [4], New York Daily News [5], MSNBC [6], The Daily Beast [7], Huffington Post [8], Los Angeles Times [9], CNBC [10]. Camyoung54 talk 17:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
So? That doesn't make it the most popular name. United States Man (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Examples of sources that dont use the name "Nemo": ABC News [11], CBS [12], CNN [13], BBC [14], Reuters [15] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
Please see WP:NPOV. United States Man (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
The term Blizzard though is being used to describe the storm. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
However, this storm is being described as a blizzard. Camyoung54 talk 19:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

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

  • 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)
Have you not read the discussion? There is no common name. United States Man (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I respect your differing interpretation of the facts. Jared (t)  20:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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” [16]. 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)
          • And there's an exact same page for the 2010 storm, with a title "Snowmageddon" [17]. (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)
  • Comment - Would WP:SOAP apply here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
    • This is not a brand, this not commercial, and this has nothing to do with the Weather Channel. RGloucester (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
      • This has plenty to do with TWC (where do you suppose the name came from in the first place). But I don't think WP:SOAP applies here. United States Man (talk) 01:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Rename as Nemo (arbitrary break)

  • Oppose -- Storm naming is properly a function of recognized meteorological or aeronautical agencies. Moreover, the existence of this article in such detail as to include this debate highlights the extreme geographic disparity in blizzard coverage on Wikipedia; I count only 6 storms outside North America in Category:Blizzards --AlexWCovington (talk) 09:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- The only mass media sources which are using the name (other than those under the same ownership as TWC), are using it only to reference what TWC is calling it. They are not using it to talk about the storm itself. This is why basic Google searches for usage fail in this context. Wikipedia should not use the name until a majority of major sources outside TWC-media ownership use the name SPECIFICALLY to talk about the storm and not simply reference TWC's use of that name. At that point, it may fairly be said that TWC has established its naming practice to the same level of general usage as the national weather service. - Tenebris 15:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.201.5 (talk)
  • Oppose per Demeteloaf. TWC's naming amounts to a publicity stunt. At best it's a colloquialism not fit for an encyclopedic title. --BDD (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - Wikipedia doesn’t decided who “properly” names storms. It simply adopts the names that are used most commonly. A good example of this is the article for Hurricane Bawbag. 138.16.101.157 (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
    • See: WP:OTHERSTUFF, Hurricane Bawbag happened in Scotland, the laws and such are not the same as they are in the United States. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
      • There are no laws governing storm naming. It is purely done by convention. Bawbag was given the name Friedhelm by the Free University of Berlin, which traditionally names European storms. Yet that name was not used. Bawbag was, and hence, it became the common name. The NWS gives names to storms not by law, but by their own decision. In same manner, anyone else can name a storm. 138.16.101.157 (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - Traffic stats are in for the past few days. The majority of people are clearly searching for Nemo. “Winter Storm Nemo” has a total of 3094 hits over the past four days. “Blizzard Nemo” has 157. The Nemo disambiguation page has a total of 25,123. We can presume that most of those are going to the storm, considering the timing, and the huge jump as the storm approached. “Blizzard of 2013" has a paltry 1026. "2013 blizzard” a mere two. This can be confirmed by a cursory glance at stats.grok.se. “Nemo” is clearly the common name. People are searching for Nemo, they are not searching for Blizzard of 2013 or anything else. How can we leave the title as it is when there is a clear alternative that most people are searching for? How can we presently leave it so that the page does not even list that name in the lead? RGloucester (talk) 01:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
That doesn't change anything. Here, consensus is cleary against the move. Elsewhere, are these Wikipedia stats? United States Man (talk) 01:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Please don't stack the deck, searches for "Winter_Storm_Nemo" net a mere 1,346 results [18]. The difference between the two has little to do with what the WP:COMMONNAME is anyways as Wikipedia is not a reliable source. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I guess if I had clicked the link I would have known that they were Wikipedia stats. Anyway, I agree. You can't you Wiki stats here since it is not a reliable source. United States Man (talk) 02:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Consensus is NOT clearly against the move. At present, we have fifteen speaking against Nemo, and 11 speaking for. That is not “clear” at all. Those are Wikipedia stats. Second, I did not “stack the deck”. Take a look again for all four days. It clearly shows 3094. RGloucester (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
It's clear enough for me. And Wikipedia is still not a reliable source, no matter how many stats you throw at us. United States Man (talk) 02:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
As mentioned further down, you need to consider both timing and source. I could also invent analyses and state that the number, in the latest stats, is approximately equivalent for "Winter Storm Nemo" and for "Blizzard of 2013", and that "Nemo" is trending down much more quickly than other variations (and even claim that "Nemo" might just refer to other disambiguated things.) But we don't have enough data to do that sort of analysis, and again, the "blizzard" designation was less-used until the storm actually met the requirements for a blizzard. But none of these tell us what reliable sources are stating, just what the most-common search terms are. (I've personally used "Winter Storm Nemo" myself to get to the article, simply because it's easier to type. But that doesn't make it the name.) Also, WP:!VOTE; you cannot simply count votes for or against, but must take the arguments into consideration. I have not seen any real arguments FOR "Nemo" other than "it has more hits on <x thingy>" or "it's popular, believe me!" – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is not a name that most news sources use. The New York Times[19] simply calls it a "gigantic midwinter storm". According to the Boston Globe[20] it was a blizzard in many locations but not in others. Since blizzards are not that common, I would recommend calling it the Blizzard of 2013. Apteva (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose; move to Blizzard of 2013 instead. The TWC naming system is not used by most sources, including the NWS. It is also not used at other Wikipedia articles for TWC-named storms, although that could be set aside if "Nemo" was the most common name for this storm. However, it's not. The most common name for this storm is "Blizzard of 2013". RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
    And let's just hope there aren't any blizzards anywhere in the world in March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, or December. Or, for that matter, that there weren't any anywhere in the world in 2013 prior to February. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 17:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
    The title North American Blizzard of 2013 would work as well its the same as Blizzard of 2013 with where its located added. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
    You are again assuming that there will be no other blizzards of note taking place on the North American continent in the year of 2013. There remain around ten and a half months in which for you to be proven wrong. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 03:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
    If or when that happens then the article title can always be changed, this is done with Hurricanes as well through the years the name may be reused with dates added on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
    Fine, sure. But what makes your proposed title better than the current one (which almost certainly will not require a move at any point in the future)? Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 03:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
    Because a Blizzard and a Nor'easter are similar but diffrent things. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
    Um... No, that's just scientifically, objectively wrong. Some blizzards are nor'easters, and some nor'easters are blizzards. This one was both. Your proposed title is less descriptive, more ambiguous, and more likely to need a move in the near future than this one. It has not a single thing going for it. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 04:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. While I do feel that various names should be presented in the lead (per the RfC below), I don't really think the title matters that much. Since the term "Winter storm Nemo" does seem to be a bone of contention both here and among professionals, I think it is probably best to choose a straightforward descriptive title for the article. The options, as I see it, are the current title of "February 2013 nor'easter" and "Blizzard of 2013". Neither of these is perfect. The first has the advantage of being very specific, leaving almost no room for ambiguity. However, this term does not seem to be widely used in news type media, and is not likely to be recognized by many readers. Moreover, the word "nor'easter" was originally a dialectical phrase that is unlikely to be understood (or appreciated) by many modern well-educated readers of English. The second has the advantage of being fairly clear to all readers, and recognizable in many news sources, but is perhaps quite northern hemisphere centric (although I'm willing to be corrected on this point by weather geeks in the audience). My own personal opinion, which carries very little weight, is that we keep the nor'easter phrasing. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. ★ Nacho ★ Mailbox ★ 06:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is an encyclopedia, not USAToday or People Magazine. A redirect from that name gets people here just fine. μηδείς (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
USAToday and People Magazine are reliable sources and respectable publications. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I assume you understand that as in the case of Hurricanes, USAToday and People Magazine are not reliable sources for choosing the official names of storms as opposed to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. μηδείς (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
And I assume you understand that Wikipedia policy is to use common names rather than official names for article titles. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Except for the fact that Winter Storm nemo is not the commonname and the term blizzard is. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
So you think the article title should be "Blizzard Nemo"? Rreagan007 (talk) 00:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
No as that is not the common name either, and not what the proposed move target is. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment I just thought I would note that FU-Berlin now calls the low pressure area affecting their area 'Nemo'. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

It is the same area of low pressure/cyclone, and the alternative would have been for the French to pick a name from their windstorm list, though this cyclone is not likely intense enough to make their cut. The Germans tend to pick up names from NHC for post-tropical systems. Is this the first time they've picked up a Weather Channel/media-driven name? I guess we might need a European section for any Icelandic/western Europe impacts. It looks like its strength in the northeast Atlantic peaked yesterday. The Weather Channel is filling a need/void with these names, whatever their reasons. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
It's also interesting to note that most of the other non-English Wikipedia articles on this topic use the name "Nemo" in their article titles. Though other language usage does not really impact whether "Nemo" is the common English name of this storm, it is interesting that other language speakers seem to be picking up on the name "Nemo". Rreagan007 (talk) 05:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I’m not surprised by that. I figure that their exposure to the storm primarily comes from Twitter and other online sources. Also, they don’t have the conflict with TWC. For them, Nemo is a simple and easy name to identity the storm. The present title would not work for the French or German wikipedia, because “nor’easter” is not very well known outside North America. “Blizzard of X” is also not very good, because they may well have their own storms that trump the NA title. Nemo makes their life much easier. None of that applies here, though, as you said. 138.16.102.25 (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:February_2013_North_American_blizzard/Archive_2&oldid=1127484253"