Talk:January 8–13, 2011 North American blizzard

Georgia Blizzard of 2011 was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 27 January 2011 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into January 8–13, 2011 North American blizzard. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Weather: Non-tropical Low‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Non-tropical storms task force (assessed as Low-importance).

The opening paragraph's final sentence is tautological and wordy. The use of "thus far" is pointless as history can not be changed. The storm is and always will be the second major snow fall to affect the indicated area.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 8–13, 2011 North American blizzard → January 8–13, 2011 North American snowstorm — Did somebody just arbitrarily name the articles "blizzard" without reading the criteria? Heavy snow alone doesn't equal a blizzard, you can get 6 feet of snow, and it isn't a blizzard. There is no mention of wind or visibility in either article.--CTJF83 13:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 25–27, 2011 North American blizzard → January 25–27, 2011 North American snowstorm

Oppose. The public and press often use the word blizzard when properly they mean a severe snowstorm, and both events were true blizzards in some affected areas. I could be swayed by evidence of strong common usage of the proposed names rather than the existing ones, but without this evidence this proposed move has nothing in its favour. Andrewa (talk) 05:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ....Nothing but accuracy.... CTJF83 12:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...no, not even that. Andrewa (talk) 01:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we proceed to change the names of these articles then what happens to the several other articles that are named "Blizzards" when they were too considered winter storms? Do we move those too? I think the article should be merged into one article named "January 2011 Blizzards in North America" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.143.209 (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If they were in fact not blizzards, then ya, if this name change "passes" then we should change the names of the other articles. CTJF83 21:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. And presumably, we should also change the title of the article on French toast to reflect the fact that it is neither French nor toast. This is what I have elsewhere called the argument from accuracy. IMO it's part of an ongoing challenge to the most basic principle of article naming, and one that might possibly succeed in time. There has been some movement in this direction over the years, and more would not surprise me. The current naming standard reads in part consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources, and that provision is relatively new. Previously, the standard was usage by all sources; Now it's usage by authoritative sources only. I think I see a trend there.
- This trend is more significant than might be obvious at first. We are going away from using the language people do speak and adopting instead the language we think they should speak. This surely is a form of advocacy?
- But this particular nomination gives no evidence at all that the move will increase consistency even with these sources. Note that WP:SOURCES (currently) reads in part Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers (my emphasis).
- There's also the little problem that, in some areas at least, both of these events were accurately described as blizzards. Or doesn't New England count? Andrewa (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree with your argument. There is no other common name for french toast, unlike blizzard, snow storm, and winter storm, which are all common. CTJF83 21:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Regardless of this, you still haven't produced a single piece of evidence that these articles should move in terms of article naming policy. Andrewa (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - These storms, while not causing blizzard conditions everywhere, did cause blizzard conditions. Dough 48 72 21:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well then we need some sources in the article proving that. CTJF83 22:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed. At present the article leads merely state that the events were true blizzards in some areas. [1] does mention the Christmas blizzard; That's relevant to the article name but not to the accuracy of the name, which are two separate but related issues. Andrewa (talk) 01:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support name change. None of the sources cited by this article have the word "blizzard" in them anywhere. National Weather Service Offices in New York and Philadelphia call the event a "winter storm" ([2] and [3]), and offices in Boston, Albany, and Portland, ME, do not make any mention of blizzard conditions (couldn't find any post-event write-ups about this event specifically). CNN's article about the event ([4]) does not make any mention that it was a blizzard. If the event wasn't a blizzard, then the article should not have blizzard in the title, but I might be able to make an exception if the name had latched on in the news media (which I would not be pleased with, but whatever). That has not happened in this case. IMO, there is no grounds for keeping this article titled as a blizzard. Incubusman27 (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The January 25-27 winter storm did not meet the criteria of a blizzard as defined by the National Weather Service. The title should have blizzard removed and changed to winter storm. Cnnweatherman (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If the name is changed, I would suggest "winter storm" over "snowstorm" as winter storm is used by the National Weather Service. Dough 48 72 22:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, yeah, it should probably be "winter storm" instead of "snowstorm." Incubusman27 (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I like that better. CTJF83 13:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, for the January 8-13 Event: Blizzard warnings appear to have been issued (CNN article: [5]), but no mention of blizzard conditions in the post-event write-up from New York ([6]) or Philadelphia ([7]; same link as before, but click on the proper event). Incubusman27 (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, according to NCDC/NOAA there were blizzard conditions in parts of New England. --Matthiasb (talk) 15:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.