Talk:December 2022 North American winter storm

Why are we still listing The Weather Channel's storm names?

Those names are made up nonsense by a company who would rather air a movie than give important hurricane information. Why are we still listing them? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 23:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

It is included for the encyclopedia “common name” reference, though it is mentioned that it is an unofficial name. I don’t agree with calling the storm by TWC’s name, however, I do believe it is important to include it in the article’s lead and note it is unofficial. Elijahandskip (talk) 05:18, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

It is included as it is a name for the system from a reliable source. You may have your personal opinions over the service that the TWC provide but that isn't relevant here. It is also worth noting that Significant Winter Storms are named based on their impacts in Europe by NMHSS, like the UKMO and other less reliable sources like the University of Berlin so thus calling it nonsense isn't correct.Jason Rees (talk) 17:34, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:TWC is an appropriate reading. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:59, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not meant to be advertising for a privately owned television station. This fails WEIGHT as most sources do not include that in their coverage of the storm. It is also a violation of WP:NOTPROMO. nableezy - 03:55, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not so bothered by the private ownership, but promoting an outlet this prominently while also using it for 0 of the following article's 108 references makes us look we're selling something we don't trust. No matter what the business is, that's bad for business. Good job, Nableezy! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:09, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

OK, disregard that, I was looking for The Weather Network. There are 3 of 108 references from the Channel. Still, I don't see any reason we must use that or any other channel/network/website's descriptor (especially when we don't even acknowledge it as a blizzard). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:15, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Uh, Elijahandskip please review WP:ONUS and the policy based objection to your edit, and please provide a reason for your blanket revert. nableezy - 04:48, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

We are not advertising, promoting or selling the weather channel by including the name: Elliott, but just recording that a reliable source named it Y as we would with the UKMO or anyone who named a system. This includes FU Berlin which actively takes money from companies and private individuals to name systems but whose names are still used in reliable sources. I also seriously doubt that we are violating WP:Weight by noting that the system was called Eliott since it has been used in reliable sources that are independent of TWC such as the New York Post, ITV and the Independent. Jason Rees (talk) 12:11, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

If people see the name somewhere, they want to know how to find the storm.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Bolding Winter Storm Elliott

Well…I hate that it comes to this…But let’s have a formal discussion about bolding “Winter Storm Elliott” in the lead. It has been un-bolded 3 times and re-bolded 4 times by various editors.

• Oppose — Per a general editing pattern/consensus for North American winter storms, the TWC name is generally italics only and not bolding. I really hate that it came to a formal discussion, but I’m done trying to revert the editors who have bolded it now 4 times. Examples of italics only: January 2022 North American blizzard, February 2022 North American winter storm, February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm, January 2020 North American storm complex, ect… I’m not looking back through the previous editors who bolded after I unfolded it, but the most recent one was WikiHelper0830. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:28, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose – Basically what Elijah said above. Another thing to note is that TWC winter storm names are unofficial, thus we do not need to bold them. I bolded the unofficial there so people can see it.Poodle23 (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - The only thing I will say is that we have bolded PAGASA names and FU Berlin names in the past both of which are semi-unofficial.Jason Rees (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

One difference, both are government related. FU Berlin is copyrighted/tag teaming with DWD and PAGASA is straight up government agency. So while they aren’t international official, they are still national-level official. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

FU Berlin isnt related to the Government or tag teaming with DWD in anyway, unless you want to say that TWC are related to the Government because some Goverment agency used their names. The DWD and other NMHSS just respect and use their names at times since they have been named for decades and were used in the media a lot.Jason Rees (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Actually, they are. Check out all the surface analysis references on 2022–23 European windstorm season. Here is a surface pressure analysis from Storm Gaia (Birgit) ([1]) Take a look at the bottom left hand corner… @ 2022 Deutscher Wetterdienst. So yes…Fu Berlin tag teams with DWD. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Just because FU Berlin takes its surface analysis from the Deutscher Wetterdienst, it doesn't mean that they are a Government Agency or are tag-teaming with them. After all TWC takes some of its data and images from NOAA and are not a Government agency. Anyway I just took a brief look at Lake Storm Aphid which was unofficially named by the NWS and uses boldfacing to describe it names throughout, as a result, I don't really see the issue here bar Wikipedia:I just don't like TWC Names.Jason Rees (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose and should be removed entirely. Most sources dont even mention this name, if anywhere it should be included in media coverage. nableezy - 00:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

•Oppose. I also agree it should not be in the lead, as the official weather agencies do not name winter storms and specifically ask others to refrain from doing to. As mentioned above, it belongs only as incidental media coverage. Crescent77 (talk) 01:05, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@Crescent77: Have you got a source for you accustion that the offical weather agencies do not name winter storms and specifically ask others to refrain from doing to. You will find that several of the offical weather agencies in Europe do name winter storms and that the NWS has refrained from commenting on the system publically.Jason Rees (talk) 01:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose mentioning in bold, support including Per WP:TWC, we can include them in the article, and it should be there. Also, I have seen sources use the weather channel name - Jalopnik, The Independent, Severe Weather Europe, True North Radio Network, and Forbes are a few examples. We have enough coverage to justify it in the article, but not in the lead. (This isn’t a run of the mill winter storm where only the TWC names it.) 12.207.51.104 (talk) 02:04, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Its a marketing ploy by a private corporation. Why exactly should the Weather Channel be linked in the lead of this article? It is promotion, pure and simple. nableezy - 02:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

It has enough weight in independent, reliable sources to pass WP:DUE, and has been a consensus. If you want TWC names barred from articles altogether, start an RFC. --12.207.51.104 (talk) 02:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

• Bold Per MOS:BOLDALTNAMES, our convention is to put alternative names in bold, not italics. The name has been used extensively by numerous independent and reliable sources including BBC; DW; El Pais; Guardian; &c. It's used as the main title in other language Wikipedias such as German and Portuguese. And there's no good alternative because the current main title here was just invented, is not official and is used by just about no-one. See WP:COMMONNAME. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:24, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

  Most people just refer to it as the December 2022 snowstorm. The issue is, they have been known for promotion using the names so we shouldn’t bold it. But we also shouldn’t scrub it completely. TWC names are definitely not COMMONNAME. 12.207.51.104 (talk) 13:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

  If you search Google News for "December 2022 snowstorm" you get zero hits. If you try "Storm Elliott", you get over 100,000 results. It is therefore very clear which is more common. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Common Name doesn’t really apply in this situation, especially since there is a long past/history for not bolding them. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:53, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: You have unintentionally proven that "Storm Elliott" is not a common name. Using the second link, I can get results up to the sixth page where it stops with 169 results. I don't understand why there is a discrepancy on the first page, but it is clear that the number is a mistake. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I think it stops with a lower number because it limits how much it retrieves in a search for performance reasons. It doesn't list every hit because most users won't want to go to the end of the long tail. This fails to disprove my main point which is that "December 2022 snowstorm" is a big fat zero. "Storm Elliott" still seems to be the only contender because the alternatives just seem to be a vague soup of generic wintry terms like blizzard, bomb cyclone, polar vortex and so on. For clarity, what's wanted is a proper name and Storm Elliott is the only one on offer.

BTW, when checking just now, I found the answer to a similar issue which was bothering me earlier this year: How do wildfires get their names?. Essentially someone gives them a name and then that sticks because it's dangerous to confuse people by using different names. But it's still not clear why everyone is happy with names for wildfires but not for winter storms.

Anyway, here's a fresh example from UK media: "The winter storm has been named Elliott".

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I entirely disagree that it is limiting anything, but I guess I cannot convince you. I do want to point out that your first search does get more results than your second because of the non-standard quoting causes Google to drop the quotes and find related articles. "December snowstorm" appears to actually get results compared to your suggestion. If you really want to find a proper alternative name that isn't controversial, I would recommend "Buffalo Blizzard" as it has "about 176,000 results" by your criteria. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:56, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

• Bold official or not, "Winter Storm Elliot" is used by a plethora of RS (see above), whether or not they have been bolded or not on other articles isn't really what is up for debate here; for this storm Elliot is used by many sources and is a COMMONNAME. I agree it is a marketing gimmick made up by TWC, but plenty of reliable sources have adopted it, meaning we should follow them.Yeoutie (talk) 04:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeoutie: One could say the same to a whole lot of other uses of it like January 2022 North American blizzard, February 2022 North American winter storm, January 2020 North American storm complex & even the semi-official February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm, aka Winter Storm Uri, which was used as a name by the Texas Governor in public broadcast updates. Those aren’t bolded, why should this one? Elijahandskip (talk) 04:42, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Many RS do not use it, including anything operated by NOAA, the AccuWeather, the Associated Press, or any other meteorological association. 12.207.51.104 (talk) 11:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Elijahandskip: You may not like it but there is no reason for those other names not to be bolded, since Wikipedia Policy says to bold them, as they are a legitmate alternative name.Jason Rees (talk) 14:17, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

• Bold. In light of WP:COMMONNAME and MOS:BOLDALTNAMES, we must bold "Winter Storm Elliott." I am not convinced by Elijahandskip's position that we should follow precedent of the other articles. As far as I'm aware, Wikipedia is not a common law jurisdiction, so WP:MOS supersedes. Lunaroxas (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

One argument for that would be the even more famous February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm (Winter Storm Uri). More fatalities and even had the TWC name mentioned by the Governor of Texas. Wikipedia did not bold that name, so obviously, the TWC names aren’t really a COMMONNAME in terms of bolding. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Good point. Perhaps, for now, I will slightly oppose until WP:MOS has some clearer guidance on this particular issue. Lunaroxas (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Lunaroxas: So let me get this straight you are opposing the bolding of Winter Storm Elliott, because some other articles do not follow the MoS when it says to bold the Legitmate Alternative Name when plenty of other weather articles do. Personally I would go and bold them all right now, but that would be in breach of Wikipedia's policy on being disruptive and gaming the system.Jason Rees (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's inconsistent about my change of position to slight opposition considering WP:TWC explicitly mentions the lack of consensus on this particular issue. The place to discuss changes that should apply to an entire category of articles isn't here. Lunaroxas (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Lunaroxas: Your change of position is confusing when you state in your inital response quite correctly that we must bold "Winter Storm Elliott" per the MOS and that you were not convinced by @Elijahandskip:'s arguemnt that we should follow precidence. I also note that WP:TWC does not state that there is a lack of consensus on if we should follow the MOS, it states that there is a lack of consensus on the names being used as a part of the article title.Jason Rees (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The crux of the issue is whether winter storm designations by TWC are legitimate alternative names, as you put it, for which MOS:BOLDALTNAMES applies. There is no consensus on that issue. Thus, I reverse my position.

I'm curious about the "legitimate alternative names" wording because that isn't how MOS defines the criteria for alternative names. They must be significant. Implying that the name "Winter Storm Elliott" is significant begs the question, which is why this discussion exists in the first place. Lunaroxas (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Lunaroxas: I would personally suggest that its quite obvious that the name Winter Storm Elliot was significant enough for MOS:BOLDALTNAMES to apply as it has around 12,700,000 results on google, was used by insurance companies, the international media and parts of the federal government.

If we really wish to examine if the naming scheme is significant enough as a whole for names to be bolded per the MOS, then I would also argue that it is since it has been in place for over 10 years, used by the Federal Government and various partners of the National Weather Service including meteorological institues. I also note that an American Meteorological Society has studied the issue.

As for the legitimatcy question, people can and have called systems whatever they like such as Hurricane Bawbag, Snowtober, St Jude, which is why TWC as well as 25 European Weather forecasters have decided to start naming Winter Storms. However, many people see it as just a promotional vehicle for The Weather Channel, even though no evidence has been found to prove this theory. I also note that Lake Storm Aphid has all of its legitmate/alternative names bolded. As a result, I must conclude that the arguments presented by @Elijahandskip: and others are just because they do not like TWC names, are unaware of the science behind the naming etc.Jason Rees (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

As I was once told, respectfully, shut up Jason Rees. This discussion fully helped me make up my mind that I personally don’t believe you are fit to edit winter weather articles on Wikipedia. You can think the same about me or not, but I have that opinion (and per admins telling me in the past), editors can have their own respective opinions about one another as long as it doesn’t interfere with benefitting Wikipedia. Guess we just have to accept to agree to disagree on this topic and I unfortunately see us potentially butting heads in the future on other winter storm articles, since I (and others) have a viewpoint about not bolding TWC names. Also, for your information, I work in the field of meteorology and I am not attached with NWS, so I do know the science behind the naming process. Elijahandskip (talk) 05:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Mix of two storm systems in this article

Loop of surface map.

This article mixes two storms systems: the one affecting the West coast, giving snow up to Vancouver B.C., and the bomb that formed in the Midwest and affected the Eastern half of the continent. Thus you cannot count the impacts and deaths as they are from the same system. Therefore, this article should be either renamed "December 2022 North American two winter storms" or split into two articles: one for the West Coast and one for the East bomb.

Pierre cb (talk) 00:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a source for it being two storm systems? Sky News says the B.C. Fatalities in Canada were the same system as Buffalo’s fatalities, so we do have at least 1 RS saying it is the same. Probably 2-3 sources would be needed to rename the article for two storms. Until we sort of solve this discussion, I’ll add a factual accuracy template to the article. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The surface map loop at right shows that they are completely unrelated storms. Sky News is a United Kingdom news media that knows nothing about the weather in North America and do mix up everything. Pierre cb (talk) 03:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

All that should be done is to remove the Seattle airport and transit system stuff,the BC bus accident and the BC flight cancellations and then article is all about the same storm. No article is needed about the far northwestern storm as its impacts were not that great.142.189.234.205 (talk) 02:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know much about the meteorological situation associated with the recent cold weather in the states, however, The Weather Channel says that Elliott led to a widespread cold outbreak that encompassed the entire eastern two-thirds of the country, but led to a cold air intrusion in Washington and Oregon that led to the formation of Winter Storm Fernando. As a result, I would suggest that the article stays combined but gets renamed.Jason Rees (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Pierre cb: Just because Sky News is based in the UK doesn’t deprecate it from US/North American storms? That logic would also mean BBC and all non-North American media is not viable for US storms. I would recommend starting a brief discussion on here (or WP:RS if needed) about deprecating Sky News for this specific article. Until then, it is considered a reliable source linking the Canadian fatalities to the storm system. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Elijahandskip: While the gif of the surface maps isn't the best thing, let's face facts the data that it presents is more reliable than Sky News. However, if you wish to challenge it further, my question would be what does the Canadian Press/Environment Canada say about the snow in BC etc. Does it link it to the bomb cyclone? If not then the Sky News article will have to come out of the article, since national media tends to be more reliable than international media. Jason Rees (talk) 12:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I will point out that if you check WP:RSPS, Sky news is listed as “questionable reliability”, thus should not be used for any WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims. Also, if we refuse to link something as clear as the mid October 2021 tornadoes and winter storm, we shouldn’t like this either.68.197.135.166 (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 2 January 2023

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: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

---

December 2022 North American winter storm → December 2022 North American winter storms – Per the above, it seems to be two seperate storms that should be combined in one article, but have a new title. Personally I am neutral on the manner. 68.197.135.166 (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose — Technical opposition since we shouldn’t do “December 2022 North American winter storms” due to the Dec 12–15 blizzard, but I do support a renaming, that is, if a reliable source ties the BC fatalities to a different storm system. A pressure system gif doesn’t equal a RS for that reason, especially since an RS says they are from the same system. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose-the information on the northwestern storm (Seattle and BC stuff) should simply be removed as that storm itself is not that signficant, a fact which is proven by the fact no one has typed up any meteorlogical information for that area/storm in the article.142.189.234.205 (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  Per WP:COVERAGE, we should not be excluding all PNW impacts (which includes a fatality in Oregon!) from this article, and if we do, 5 deaths justifies its own article or at least a section in 2022-23 North American winter.68.197.135.166 (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  Well, start writing a section in the 2022-23 North American winter article then. 142.189.234.205 (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  Gaining consensus for that isn’t always easy to do. The December 2021 Midwest derecho and tornado outbreak, for example, mentions a big blizzard and snowstorm out in the West, and it didn’t even get a section. It was demoted to the seasonal summary. Same for the Pacific Northwest storms in late December and early January. As can be seen in the edit history sections aren’t always even added if death is caused. The fundamental problem is that 5 winter storm deaths isn’t as notable as 5 tornado or hurricane deaths. Nonetheless, I think it would be due weight to include it here. Please note that if we drop the deaths, if this article is still on Template:In the news, the death toll on there would have to drop to 80 (91 to 86, and we round down to ten on ITN.)68.197.135.166 (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: I don't think the minor storms were of any importance. RPI2026F1 (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose:the article is 98% about the main storm; it would be complete folly to rename the article to "winter storms" because of a small storm that is related but technically/officially is separate. The two or three spots where the BC/Seattle/Oregon stuff is mentioned should just be worded to the effect "In a related but separate storm system..." and the details about how its intrusion was permitted by the larger storm could be covered in 2 or 3 sentences at the end of the Meteorological History (where nothing about it is mentioned now due it being so insignificant - if it wasn't for the 6 deaths in the area we wouldn't even be discussing this)..Eastern Cougar (talk) 06:23, 8 January 2023 (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.

Similar to February 2021 cold wave

Is it necessary to mention that the cold wave in December 2022 hit places that the February 2021 cold wave affected? I would need to find sources. Cwater1 (talk) 06:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

GA

Is this article good enough to be nominated for GA? It seems very complete despite the high level of impact. 63.118.20.162 (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)