Talk:February 2014 nor'easter

	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).

Disaster management Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Winter Storm Pax?

If this term redirects here, shouldn't it be mentioned someplace on the page (if not the lead)? Tinton5 (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The term is something the Weather Channel started and is promoting. For this reason, @Floydian: feels it is promotional and a neutrality issue.[1] (They refer me to a "talk page" for on-going discussion, but I don't see where that is.)

IMO, we need to make it clear that anyone searching for "Winter Storm Pax" got to the right article. WP:R#PLA seems to confirm this. While some names are legitimately POV, we bold and link those (see all of the accusatory and apologetic names at Naming the American Civil War. This one, however, does not promote a point of view: the storm was crippling, the storm was hyped for whatever reason, the storm was caused by... whatever. None of these ideas (or anything similar) are encoded in "Winter Storm Pax" in any way that I can find.

Is it "promotional"? Sure: the Weather Channel is promoting the idea that they should be able to assign names to winter storms. To be clear here, no none is suggesting renaming the article, only that the term IS being used by some people, this article is the appropriate target and those arriving at this article should know they've found the right article. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So it should go in the body, clearly labelled as an unaccepted naming by one lone channel. It is WP:UNDUE weight to stick it in the lede because one source has decided "we're naming them, like it or lump it". It is nonsensical to say readers need to see it in the lede to know they've arrived on the right article - the fact that they were redirected is enough, and the hatnote that appears on the target page when you are redirected adds additional information. We should not be bolding terms used by one source when dozens of sources have condemned the practise. I thought this page was the one with the discussion, but it's one of the other 50 useless articles on winter storms that we have for this year where that has happened. We don't need to validate The Weather Channel's wrongful and shameless self-promotion by acknowledging their names. This isn't a weather agency, it's a TV station. Note the line in WP:R#PLA: But insignificant or minor redirects can skip this (emphasis mine) - Floydian ^τ _¢ 00:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tinton if the name was not being used for promotion then it would be acceptable, nobody can argue against this being a winter storm but can argue against the name usage per WP:UNDUE - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find the talk page you meant. The article you linked to has numerous topics and I haven't the patience. February 2013 nor'easter, after substantial, heated debate, was not moved to Winter Storm Nemo, but the title is in the lede, bolded. (See Talk:February 2013 nor'easter/Archive 2.) I've raised the issue at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Meteorology#Names_of_winter_storms to hopefully find a solid consensus. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should try to make your request for commentary a little less opinionated and just stick to "a discussion about ____ is take place at _____, you input is appreciated..." but otherwise, I appreciate a larger input. Floydian ^τ _¢ 09:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My local paper called the storm "Pax" (I'm reluctant to provide a link because they charge if you read too many of their articles, but I may be able to find a way). The local radio station has a national DJ who tells us each time The Weather Channel has named a new storm. He said this morning we were up to Q. I found a source that says R.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorological History

Can someone please add a section detailing the Meteorological history of this system? Most of the other winter storm articles have one, and it would be really nice to know just how this storm developed, and what it did during its duration. LightandDark2000 (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Date

I am confused by some of these dates. The date in the infobox conflicts with the article title; is there a reason for this? It is also inconsistent with the WPC storm dates here; I can't really connect the storm in this article to the any of of the WPC dates. Dustin talk 00:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mid-February 2014 North American winter storm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Nor'easter which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]