Talk:January 2015 North American blizzard

The title is predicting the future.

How do you know that it won't end on the 27th? Or the 29th? Dustin (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I have moved this to draft-space, while I agree that this storm will warrant it's own article I feel that it is WP:TOOSOON. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Not anymore. This title matches previous titles for nor'easters, and doesn't presume any precise start of end date, other than "January" which is a 99.9% safe prediction at this point. Jehochman ^Talk 14:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

When the article was first made it read January 24 - 28, 2015 nor'easter. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that wouldn't be right. I think that the news coverage, preparations, and disruptions have already reached a level that the article can be live. If this thing fizzles, which I doubt, we can rename it January 2015 blizzard panic. Jehochman ^Talk 14:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Eventually the title will be moved to include dates but for now January 2015 nor'easter it is. =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Knowledgekid, if nor'easter will actually remain part of the title, I do not think it is necessary for the date range to be included. Also, what other nor'easters have occurred in January? If the title still read "winter storm", a date range would make more sense, but it doesn't appear necessary with "nor'easter". Dustin (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The system just this past weekend was a nor'easter. What's wrong with being specific? TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, if there was a nor'easter, it was not of much significance. Dustin (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Summary section at 2014–15 North American winter

I soon expect that a section for this storm but at the main winter article with a link to this article will be useful; I don't have time at the moment, but I think this would be a useful change to make. The section can be at 2014–15 North American winter#Late-January winter storm. Any help would be appreciated! Dustin (talk) 03:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Please, please, please merge this article's contents into January 2015 nor'easter. Your draft is more than ready, and the article already in existence has terrible coverage. LightandDark2000 (talk) 11:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Merge from Draft:January 2015 North American winter storm in progress. Jehochman ^Talk 14:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@LightandDark2000:, I don't know why you posted underneath this header, but you don't appear to have actually noticed what I was actually talking about, that is, a section-to-be at 2014–15 North American winter with a summary of this storm. Dustin (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Oops... Sorry about that. Guess I didn't notice. LightandDark2000 (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Merge of draft

As mentioned just above I've merged the draft into this article. I have no position on which title was better. Choosing the nor'easter title was designed to reflect the fact that this storm's main impact will be on the northeast coast, and because it's commonly being called a nor'easter, and because we already have other significant storms called nor'easters. Feel free to propose the original or some other title. If my merge has left something to be desired, please correct it and inform me of how to do better next time. Thank you all for your contributions to this article. It's going to get a lot of traffic and edits these next few days. Let's keep the readers' interest our primary concern and not squabble about details. Jehochman ^Talk 14:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Move to "Blizzard of 2015" ?

Note: This is NOT an official move request

So now that it is officially a Blizzard [1], would it be worth it to move the title to the more WP:COMMONNAME? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but I believe the National Weather Service distinguishes between blizzard conditions and an actual blizzard. The determination of whether a storm qualifies as a blizzard is usually only made after the storm passes. -- Calidum 17:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay true and point taken, this discussion I feel though will come down the road. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, not true. The article clearly states, "The agency says Suffolk County officially met the conditions of a blizzard at 2 a.m. Tuesday." I support moving this page to Blizzard of 2015, but an administrator will have to do that. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I oppose any such move, as you have no way of knowing that there won't be another blizzard in the United States at some other point, and more importantly, this ignores the rest of the world. Dustin (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

In which case it would be a very simple matter to rename the page for a second time. As far as geographic location, how about North American blizzard of 2015? TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is, if you add in "North America", you may as well just call it by a standard name of "January 2015 North American blizzard". I think the current title is best. Dustin (talk) 04:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Haha no offense but that is a terrible name. How could you possibly think that this will be the only blizzard in the entire world in 2015? I'm sorry but Americans really can be self centre and forget about the rest of the world... EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 04:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm an American but I am opposing. Dustin (talk) 04:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Whether this is the only blizzard in 2015 or not is, at this point, irrelevant. If at a later date there is another blizzard that warrants an article, then the title of this article can easily be renamed. I'm not close-minded to comprimising, given my proposal to name it North American blizzard of 2015, or, as Dustin suggested, January 2015 North American blizzard. According to WP:NPOV, "If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased." A simple Google search indicates 38,000,000 hits for "January 2015 nor'easter," and 87,500,000 hits for "Blizzard of 2015," so I don't believe the current title is a true representation of the scope of the system. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 14:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Im up for January 2015 North American blizzard, would you like me to make an official move request or just ping an admin? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@TropicalAnalystwx13: So by that logic we should just rename it Blizzard because it gets 119,000,000 Google hits? Google hits aren't everything, we should base it on what the past storms articles are named. February 2013 nor'easter, March 2013 nor'easter because it was a nor'easter and nothing more. I Oppose any move and say we should leave it based on past names. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

See also: February 5–6, 2010 North American blizzard, February 9–10, 2010 North American blizzard, February 25–27, 2010 North American blizzard, February 2013 North American blizzard, December 17–22, 2012 North American blizzard among other articles. Yes, it was a nor'easter, but not all nor'easters are blizzard like this system was. I do not feel that the current article title covers the scope of the storm. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

All of those you linked were not nor'easters hence why they were not named as such. They affected various parts or all of the us and weren't classified as a nor'easter by NWS which this was. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 22:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Are any of these credible? [2] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

A better map showing snowfall

I think we should use this one: [3]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Should Table Include Metrics?

I'll change it if no objections or suggestions. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Current Table

Amount (inches)	City/location	State
36.0	Lunenburg	MA
36.0	Auburn	MA
36.0	Milford	MA
36.0	Hudson	MA
34.1	Clinton	MA
33.5	Thompson	CT
33.5	Framingham	MA
33.5	Worcester	MA
33.2	Nashua	NH
33.0	Acton	MA
32.0	Hudson	NH
32.0	Holden	MA
30.7	Plymouth	MA
30.0	Orient	NY
29.0	Southampton	NY
27.0	Hyannis	MA
26.9	Mattituck	NY
26.2	Shrewsbury	MA
26.0	Boston	MA
25.6	Medford	NY
24.4	West Gloucester	RI
24.0	Groton	CT
24.0	West Babylon	NY
24.0	Hanover	MA
24.0	Marshfield	MA

Proposed Table

Amount	City/location	State
36.0 inches (91 cm)	Lunenburg	MA
36.0 inches (91 cm)	Auburn	MA
36.0 inches (91 cm)	Milford	MA
36.0 inches (91 cm)	Hudson	MA
34.1 inches (87 cm)	Clinton	MA
33.5 inches (85 cm)	Thompson	CT
33.5 inches (85 cm)	Framingham	MA
33.5 inches (85 cm)	Worcester	MA
33.2 inches (84 cm)	Nashua	NH
33.0 inches (84 cm)	Acton	MA
32.0 inches (81 cm)	Hudson	NH
32.0 inches (81 cm)	Holden	MA
30.7 inches (78 cm)	Plymouth	MA
30.0 inches (76 cm)	Orient	NY
29.0 inches (74 cm)	Southampton	NY
27.0 inches (69 cm)	Hyannis	MA
26.9 inches (68 cm)	Mattituck	NY
26.2 inches (67 cm)	Shrewsbury	MA
26.0 inches (66 cm)	Boston	MA
25.6 inches (65 cm)	Medford	NY
24.4 inches (62 cm)	West Gloucester	RI
24.0 inches (61 cm)	Groton	CT
24.0 inches (61 cm)	West Babylon	NY
24.0 inches (61 cm)	Hanover	MA
24.0 inches (61 cm)	Marshfield	MA

EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Knowledgekid87: Do you think this is needed? EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It cant hurt, after all Wikipedia isn't strictly American. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I see no reason not to include metrics, but it's unusual for the locations to come after the totals. I've reconstructed it to the more common form below. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal v2.0

City	State	Amount
Lunenburg	MA	36.0 in (91 cm)
Auburn	MA	36.0 in (91 cm)
Milford	MA	36.0 in (91 cm)
Hudson	MA	36.0 in (91 cm)
Clinton	MA	34.1 in (87 cm)
Thompson	CT	33.5 in (85 cm)
Framingham	MA	33.5 in (85 cm)
Worcester	MA	33.5 in (85 cm)
Nashua	NH	33.2 in (84 cm)
Acton	MA	33.0 in (84 cm)
Hudson	NH	32.0 in (81 cm)
Holden	MA	32.0 in (81 cm)
Sharon	MA	31.0 in (79 cm)
Plymouth	MA	30.7 in (78 cm)
Orient	NY	30.0 in (76 cm)
Southampton	NY	29.0 in (74 cm)
Hyannis	MA	27.0 in (69 cm)
Mattituck	NY	26.9 in (68 cm)
Shrewsbury	MA	26.2 in (67 cm)
Boston	MA	26.0 in (66 cm)
Medford	NY	25.6 in (65 cm)
West Gloucester	RI	24.4 in (62 cm)
Groton	CT	24.0 in (61 cm)
West Babylon	NY	24.0 in (61 cm)
Hanover	MA	24.0 in (61 cm)
Marshfield	MA	24.0 in (61 cm)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 29 January 2015

The amounts are thrown off though with the sorting, you have to include the .0s - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Added. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay thanks, yeah it does make sense to have the table like this I was just waiting for your input on the amounts. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

System Has Dissipated

The nor'easter dissipated over the Atlantic Maritimes. Why does the article say it is still active? And for that matter, why do people drive on a parkway and park on a driveway? 151.188.213.153 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The use of the TWC name in the first line is an endorsement of TWC.

If there is no objection, I'd like to move the TWC name to a new section labelled "Other Names". I quote from Winter_storm_naming_in_the_United_States. "TWC's decision was met with criticism from other weather forecasters, who called the practice self-serving and potentially confusing to the public." I do not think Wikipedia should be promoting TWC names. Bodysurfinyon (talk) 05:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It should stay, since people have actually used the term to refer to the storm. I removed the bit about it being "controversial" since we're not here to editorialize. -- Calidum 06:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it should stay but that is just my opinion, people have used more than one name to describe this storm why does Juno take preference over them? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I removed it altogether, if it is notable great place it in the article explaining why, if not we don't need to go through all this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Stop removing it. You have not provided a reason for not including it that trumps Wp:Alternative title. -- Calidum 11:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Per policy then I can see It staying but keep this in mind: [4]. per WP:BRD. WP:PROMOTION, and prior consensus Talk:November 2012 nor'easter#RfC on the validity of names given by TWC please stop including the name of the weather channel in the lead. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

A three-year old discussion isn't consensus, see WP:CCC. The discussion here and edits to this article show support for keeping it. -- Calidum 04:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Its promotion TWC is a for profit media agency, the TWS is against it. Just drop the weather channel bit is all. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia not a means to promote names used by a media agency. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure New Jersey's state government promotes the weather channel too then, right [5]? Props to RGloucester for finding the link, as indicated on your talk page. -- Calidum 04:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Im just asking that the The Weather Channel bit be removed per WP:NPOV and WP:PROMOTION its advertising to have TWC a media company appear in the lead section of a winter storm. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. You can remove that part. -- Calidum 04:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

RJaguar3 has indicated that he believes including TWC is an important piece of information that readers should know from the lead. Instead of all the back-and-forth reverting, let's reach a consensus. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Inks.LWC: Should not the status quo be used in situations such as these? My understanding is that the mention of The Weather Channel was recently added. That's not to say you cannot still discuss the issue. Dustin (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, what we do on other articles should probably be done here. I don't really care if it's in there or not. However, what should not happen is having an edit war between several editors resolved by reaching an agreement between only two of the involved editors without waiting for input from the other involved editors. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It was a misunderstanding, one editor thought I was removing the reference to Juno altogether when I wasn't. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 07:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

'Controversially' Named

Ok, need some input here from an uninvolved. Should it say the storm was 'controversially named Juno', or 'named Juno'. Anyones input is welcome! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 23:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Per my comment in the above section, it shouldn't. There's no reason to editorialize and it runs afoul of WP:LABEL. -- Calidum 23:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)