Talk:2017–18 North American winter

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

The section Seasonal Forecasts contradicts the map.[edit]

In the section Seasonal Forecasts, it is written that Hawaii will expericence above-average precipitation and that southern Alaska will experience increased temperatures. However, the maps contradict this. I, being an IP editor, don't want to undo Master of Time's edits myself without support from an account user.2601:2C1:C280:3EE0:141E:DDEC:9277:D60B (talk) 04:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Alaska part appears to be a mistake of my own. As for Hawaii, the source explicitly says "Wetter-than-average conditions are favored across most of the northern United States, extending from the northern Rockies, to the eastern Great Lakes, the Ohio Valley, in Hawaii and in western and northern Alaska." despite its map indicating below-average precipitation favored in Hawaii. This is an internal contradiction. I may check for another NOAA source to remedy this. Master of Time (talk) 04:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This map from the CPC shows Hawaii in green. Master of Time (talk) 04:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually in the middle of leaving a message on your talk page because I didn't know whether or not you'd automatically get a notification from here (as it's not in your userspace as User:Master_Of_Time/2017–18 North American winter) when I saw that you'd replied here. Can you try to inform the NOAA of this? Anyway, if you can't find another source, should the summary be changed to match the image, or will you try to change the image to match the summary?2601:2C1:C280:3EE0:141E:DDEC:9277:D60B (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will probably leave the text as is and consider mentioning the contradiction in the image caption while still keeping the image as is. I might consider sending an email asking about it, although that's no guarantee I'll receive a timely response. Maybe they'll realize their mistake and fix the contradiction. Master of Time (talk) 04:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On the video on the page, both the map and the narrator say that Hawaii will get above-average precipitation and that the Hawaiian drought will improve or end. It's probably safe to assume that the image is wrong.98.197.198.46 (talk) 02:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was inactive for an unusually long amount of time, which is quite rare. It is very uncommon that I go multiple days without even checking Wikipedia while logged in. Anyway, this pretty much backs up what I said. I'll modify the caption in the near-future to note the likely inaccuracy of the map. Master of Time (talk) 06:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May I make a part of the Seasonal Forecasts section more specific?[edit]

Basically, I would to know whether or not I should replace

The outlook favored below-average temperatures in the northern tier, from Minnesota to the Pacific Northwest region as well as southeastern Alaska.

with

The outlook favored below-average temperatures in the western half of the northern tier, from Minnesota to the Pacific Northwest region as well as southeastern Alaska.

. The current version agrees with and doesn't contradict the map, so I assume that the forecaster means what is on the map, and that I'm just changing the sentence to make it more specific. What do you think?2601:2C1:C280:3EE0:39B4:B7B1:F73D:3858 (talk) 03:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Late October nor'easter[edit]

I have tagged this section as I'm not sure if this is notable from a winter storm point of view. What snow or ice impacts did the storm have? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Knowledgekid87: It was added by an IP. I discussed removing it at LightandDark2000's talk page, but he seemed to think it was appropriate. Care to clarify? Master of Time (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow, I hadn't notice that MarioProtIV removed it a couple hours ago. Add your own thoughts if you feel it helpful. Master of Time (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The storm was one of the most powerful nor'easters to strike New England in years. That in itself is notable enough for the storm to be mentioned (I'm actually surprised that the storm doesn't have its own article yet, given its impacts in New England and Atlantic Canada). Also, just because a storm is an "early season" storm, or end up being a mainly rain/wind system doesn't make it non-notable. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then it should be on an article about nor'easters, not all of them cause winter weather. I recommend that the removed section be moved to Nor'easter#Notable nor’easters. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the record... the entry was moved to Nor'easter#Notable nor’easters. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable events[edit]

An IP editor has been repeatedly adding non-significant events to the page, and I have constantly reverted these edits, but @The Nth User: is accusing me of being in an edit war whereas I am just trying to improve the quality of the article. Now I believe that I must draw the line here for notability in the winter pages (not just this one, but for all of them). I believe that we should only include major and unusual events during the wintertime that are recorded by WPC. Filling the page with events that weren’t that significant or unusual just ruin the quality of the page. I think we need to vote on how we are going to settle this out. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 16:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Master of Time: for his input on this since he is the main creator of all these pages. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 21:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these events don't have winter storm summaries from the U.S. Weather Prediction Center which weakens the argument for keeping them in the article. That's not to say all worthwhile events will automatically have WPC summaries even if significant, but it may be worth reassessing whether they should be included. At the very least, limited mentions may be worth including in the Seasonal summary section. I still think it might be worth completely removing the section on the October nor'easter (as mentioned above), since it doesn't seem to have had any wintry characteristics. Master of Time (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I drew up some ideas for North American winter article structure at Talk:2011–12 North American winter in mid-2016. Maybe they'll be helpful to some extent. Master of Time (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the talk page, and I made a reply. Also, I made some articles:

that might be helpful. What do you think? The Nth User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 18:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don’t really add the TWC name as they aren’t official names, and the only one as of now that seems significant enough was “Benji” (which already has a section here). --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 19:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I think that it would be a good idea to at least put the TWC-given name in parentheses in the title, like ===Early December winter storm (Winter Storm Benji)===, because there are probably a bunch of people who go by the TWC-given names. For me, personally, the reason that I like to use the TWC-given names is because I feel that labels like "Winter Storm Benji" are definitive and not ambiguous, while "Early December winter storm" could apply to at least three or four storms and is therefore not as good of a title. The Nth User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 02:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Hammersoft: Okay. In that case, should I just request my five draft articles, even Winter Storm Benji, for deletion? The Nth User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 21:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would consider moving well sourced information to appropriate articles. In the event no such articles exist, you might consider creating an article with a more widely used name for the meteorological event. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well what should I do now? I was planning waiting for an AFC reviewer to tell me what he/she thinks about the title. I like to use the TWC-given name because it's definitive and can only apply to one storm, as opposed to three or four or so. The Nth User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 21:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with 2017–18 North American cold wave[edit]

(Non-admin closure) Seems to be no consensus against merging this page, and the last response was over a week ago. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 15:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Not enough here to justify a stand alone article. It's mostly just a list of record cold temps and likely does not pass WP:EVENT. See also the more detailed concerns about notability on the article talk page. Ad Orientem (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Many school closings and deaths have occurred as a result of the cold snap. We should take this to WP:AFD to get the broader community involved. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. As written, there's not much to go on. But, the event is setting records all over the place, and there have been eight deaths associated with it so far. Shelters are opening up all over the place too. This is an ongoing event, so we shouldn't be using a crystal ball to determine if it's notable, but rather WP:GNG. I think we're already well past GNG territory. Have a look at these news results;
And there's plenty more article. This meteorological event is breaking records that has stood for over a hundred years. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
School closings are trivial events and even deaths, unless some long term significance can be assessed, don't establish WP:N. At this point I am seeing little that justifies the content fork. This looks like a text book example of WP:RECENTISM. From EVENT...
Editors should bear in mind recentism, the tendency for new and current matters to seem more important than they might seem in a few years time. Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance. News organizations have criteria for content, i.e. news values, that differ from the criteria used by Wikipedia and encyclopedias generally. A violent crime, accidental death, or other media events may be interesting enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage, but this will not always translate into sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article.
...Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is in how long it's been since the last event of such magnitude. Sandy, the then-second-costliest Atlantic hurricane, came only four years after the previous second-costliest Atlantic hurricane, Ike, which itself was only three years after the then-costliest hurricane, Katrina. Only five years later, Sandy is now only fifth-costliest, having been trumped by three more storms, at least two of which caused more damage than Katrina. This cold wave caused the second-coldest ball drop since records started, and the coldest in a century. By that measure, this cold wave will on average remain second-coldest of all time for 100/7 (14 2/7) as long as Sandy did, or 500/7 (71 3/7) years, and therefore will have the resulting notability for on average over 70 years. Meanwhile, Harvey is relatively unimportant because it's only the costliest Atlantic hurricane now. In 15-18 years, less than a quarter as long as this cold spell is likely to keep its record for, Harvey will have been trumped by at least two or three different storms. I'm not in any way saying that we shouldn't have articles about Harvey, Sandy, or Katrina; I think that they are notable, but what I'm saying is that if we have articles about them, then we should have an article about this even more so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Nth User (talk • contribs) 22:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My crystal ball says there is a possibility that the winter next year could be worse as well, so your logic doesn't make much sense when applied to a future possibility. We still talk about Katrina... how often do we talk about the 2015 polar vortex? Right, when a polar vortex reappears and the media sensationalizes it! - Floydian τ ¢ 19:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support this is marginally better than the other approach, which is ignoring the sub-page entirely until an AfD in February. Wikipedia functions as an almanac, but it doesn't need articles like this that merely report the weather. If there is significant long-lasting coverage, it can be spun out later. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - we don't need an article each time there are multiple sources when another article could become much more comprehensive and informative by combining the shorter event into the grander one. - Floydian τ ¢ 15:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - No need to have this split this into two articles. It's just winter. Gamebuster (Talk)║Contributions) 16:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Meteorologists call present cold front 'out of the ordinary', Time 'Extreme' Cold Weather Blamed for 9 Deaths Across the U.S. this is a notable cold front and should have a stand alone article. Valoem talk contrib 18:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another source CNN Winter storm threatens East Coast, bringing temps colder than Mars. Valoem talk contrib 18:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - There are numerous sources calling it a historic cold wave, it can stay. Jdcomix (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - how does having sources warrant a WP:SPLIT? This article could use more prose, more sources, more coverage... rather than splitting that coverage across two articles. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merging the cold wave with the winter season suggests the cold wave is not notable and common for winter. This is not common and sources suggest this is one of the most intense cold wave in recent history. Therefore it warrants a stand alone article as cold waves have in the past. Valoem talk contrib 19:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that the significance of this event rests upon the existence of a separate article? It's still a cold wave in winter, which is what happens in the winter. - Floydian τ ¢ 14:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Not enough content to warrant a separate article. Dough4872 20:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This cold wave was record-breaking, and especially rare considered much of it was in December. (At least in Canada) Granted, the current article has a lot of shortcomings, like having a primarily U.S. POV; doesn't mean the subject is not notable enough for its own article. Bert Macklin (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another idea - We could merge 2017–18 North American cold wave with January 2018 North American blizzard since the cold air from the former helped fuel the latter. The Nth User I like to use parser functions. Care to differ or discuss? 22:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose this idea. The winter storm is predominantly east-centric, while the cold wave, which began earlier, impacted much of the central United States. Master of Time (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Right now the article is small and barely above being a stub. While the record setting temperatures may warrant an article, it would probably help if it had more info. If there isn't any, it may be better to transfer all info to the section in 2017–18 North American winter (and just expand that instead).--Halls4521 (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merging, given that it includes the entire North American area (including Canada), not just the United States. There are two other articles on a very similar topic: January 2018 North American blizzard, and 2017–2018 North American cold wave.
Proposal: The hierarchy should go like this: Winter (continent) > cold wave (countries/regions) > blizzard (towns and cities). -Mardus /talk 05:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the city is New York or London, there will never be an article for a city, and never ever for a town. - Floydian τ ¢ 14:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a merger, as I noted on the other article's talk page. A "cold wave" is not notable enough for its own article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. Notability is not centered on what type of thing something is, and any category has the potential to become notable. In this case, records that had stood for centuries were broken, so I think that the cold wave has sufficient notability due to its record-breaking coldness. I oppose depriving it of the independent article that it is notable enough to have. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 21:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just because it can be an independent article doesn't mean it should. We should provide comprehensive coverage at the highest level before delving into subsets of a subject, because it's the readers that matter, not our personal pride in the articles. - Floydian τ ¢ 14:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merging solely for the fact that the cold wave fueled the blizzard. The cold wave and blizzard combination killed more than about 25 people. I say we put it either in the 2017-18 North American winter under the blizzard or put it in the January 2018 North American blizzard. - Jayab314 (talk) 12:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and many of those people were only killed by the combination, not either one alone. Winter Storm Grayson knocked out power to many people, but they wouldn't have needed heating if it weren't for the cold wave. From the other perspective, there are a significant number of people who died in their houses from the cold wave but wouldn't have died if Grayson hadn't knocked out their power. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 00:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this was a monster cold snap that pretty much cover half of the US and saw temps that was severely colder then normal for parts of Canada, and this is a big time cold wave as even parts of Florida got freezing temps and some snow. Boutitbenza 69 9 (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Who wants to help me create draft pages for Winter Storms Frankie and Grayson?[edit]

I've already done pages for Aiden through Ethan:

Anyone who wants to help may post below. The Nth User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 17:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Names given by The Weather Channel are not NOAA sponsored names, and should not be used. Every one of these could easily be summarized, AS IS, in this article under a section for each. We don't have an article down to every indivisible concept. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The_Nth_User, you've already been informed that such names for storms are not acceptable, per this RfC. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hammersoft we can't name the articles after those designations but news coverage includes them and without at least a redirect, people won't have this convenient way of finding the information. Of course, people will argue that a redirect should have a name actually used in the target article, and that also seems to be a no-no. By the way, I've given up on my attempt to say anything about the coldest Dick Clark New Year's Eve because Ryan Seacrest is the only person who said it and we can't use him as a source.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If well-known news sources besides The Weather Channel use The Weather Channel's names, then we can use The Weather Channel's names. At least, that's the feeling that I've gotten. The Nth User I like to use parser functions. Care to differ or discuss? 21:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we can't, because consensus says we can't. But I disagree. We can always change what consensus is, but that's hard. The best we can do right now is the redirects that allow people to find the information using these convenient designations.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that that consensus was based on the fact that those names weren't in widespread use, and consensus would be the other way around if they were. The Nth User I like to use parser functions. Care to differ or discuss? 21:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is linked above, so you see what they have to say.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. See gwickwire's vote:

*Keep. NBC, ABC, FOX news are all onboard with the Weather Channel's naming system for now. CNN has used it in web, all others have used the names on TV and web. This is more than just a "for profit" venture by TWC, the naming is being used by most major news outlets now. gwickwire | Leave a message 22:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I wonder why Wikipedia isn't supposed to use them if most major news outlets already do. The Nth User I like to use parser functions. Care to differ or discuss? 22:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because at best, they are misleading terms that confuse rather than bring clarity to a weather event. There is no clear meteorological definition of a winter storm, unlike a hurricane. Where does it end? Where does it begin? It is a continent wide low pressure system, or a local effect system with significant impact in only one area? Since we don't know where they end or begin, we can't identify whether a particular impact is because of that storm. We're just guessing. The problem is that a non-cyclonic storm has no clear end and beginning. That's why we can't use the names. That's why the National Weather Service doesn't use them either. It might be convenient for The Weather Channel, but for meteorological purposes it's hideously inaccurate. You might as well say the level of Lake Mead is directly affected by river flows in the Mississippi River Basin. If you want to start a new RfC to use the names, be my guest. Perhaps consensus has changed. In the meantime, the last RfC sustains and we do not use the names. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Nth User: I'm confused. I believed we had made in abundantly clear that the TWC names are not to be used, per the prior concensus. Was there something about this that was not clear? I don't understand why you decided to use them anyway even when told they are not to be used? Can you help me out here? --Hammersoft (talk) 01:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that because it was in parentheses and was serving to explain that the storm is also called Winter Storm Grayson, as opposed to being the primary title, it was okay. Winter Storm Grayson and other names for the storm are listed in the first paragraph of the lead of the main article. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 01:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that the prior RfC said not to use them, but you're going ahead and using them anyway. You've already created Winter Storm Benji against that consensus. You continue to develop your draft articles using those names as if we are going to use them. Yet, we won't. I thoroughly and wholeheartedly applaud your enthusiasm for the work you are doing here on this project. But, brute forcing something into the project against the sustaining consensus is not the way to handle things. I'm sure you can appreciate that. If we did allow that, than anyone with an opinion (and we all have opinions) could try to force their idea of how it should be onto the project. We have to work within consensus, whether we like it or not, whether we agree with the consensus or not. If you want to change that prior consensus, please by all means be my guest and start a new RfC. But, to try to force usage of the names against that consensus is not the way forward. I hope you understand? --Hammersoft (talk) 01:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am strongly against having article names based off of The Weather Channel. This is per prior consensus and WP:SOAP which says to "describe the topic from a neutral point of view". I found a reference from someone in the field and added the following in Winter storm naming in the United States:
"Doctoral candidate Adam Rainear from the University of Connecticut stated that the names do not add credibility based on a study he had done on impacts. [1] Rainear argues that hurricane names were adopted as a useful tool for mariners to help warn ships of the storm's path. He points out though, that no "data" supports the notion of The Weather Channel drawing in more people by naming winter storms." [2]
Hurricanes were indeed given names due to the fact that they could be useful to mariners, as Hammersoft pointed out above there is also the problem of defining a winter storm. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

::Fine! I hope that you're all happy now! [[User talk:The_Nth_User|Care to differ or discuss with me?]] [[User:The_Nth_User|The Nth User]] 01:32, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Nobody's trying to ruin your work @The Nth User:. All of us have to work within consensus on this project. It is a given that how we think the project should do something is not going to agree with the way the project actually does things 100% of the time. I applaud your devotion to editing storm related articles. Please do keep it up! We're just not going to name articles with TWC names. That's all. It's no big deal. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Seasonal Summary[edit]

No one is updating the seasonal summary and it's unnecessary. Maybe if we grow it and update it more, then we can keep it, but I see it as a waste of space. I checked if it was even in the last year's winter season and it isn't, so I think it should be deleted. Jayab314 (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The summary isn't being updated and should be deleted! 71.206.3.92 (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it's not happening. The last year's winter needs to be updated too, so I wouldn't call that a good example. I know that that article is still under construction, but see 2011–12 North American winter#Seasonal summary. Master of Time (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018-19 North American winter[edit]

Does someone want to help me with creating the 2018-19 North American winter page? The first winter storm has already passed and the page hasn't been created yet. If so, go to my talk page so we can talk. Jayab314 (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring in article[edit]

@HurricaneCovid: @MarioProtIV: Please have a discussion about your desired edits on the talk page rather than reverting. jp×g 23:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: Oh, we were having a discussion off-wiki but I suppose we could have one on the talk page too. HurricaneCovid (contribs) 01:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HurricaneCovid and MarioProtIV: I believe that the satellite image should be the image in the box if you had to pick one; however, I like the current resolution of having both of them share the box. That seems to resolve the issue. United States Man (talk) 23:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah we took care of it off-wiki. That compromise works. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 23:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-February Mid-Atlantic winter storm (February 17-18, 2018)[edit]

I have no opinion on the inclusion of this winter storm in the article, but to uphold WP:BRD, I am starting a discussion about the removal (or Re-addition) of it into the article. The first WP:BOLD removal was done by HeatWave2022. I went ahead and challenged/readded it because it was removed in an edit summary of ”not notable”. Later, HeatWave2022 removed the section again with the edit summary of If you want to keep it, spam it with accumulations. As of right now it can easily be summarized in the season section. 2 references and 2 sentences with no deaths and no google hits doesn't satisfy a section. Sections should be a paragraph at least. Wanted to start a discussion section just for WP:BRD. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a storm that can't even have 3 references to it should have a section. Plenty of larger storms would never have a section, such as the February 13, 2022 winter storm here in the NYC area. --HeatWave2022 (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2022[edit]

Please add, under the April cold wave section, that the cold wave forced the Chicago Cubs to postpone 28 baseball games. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-met-baseball-climate-change-20180924-story.html 47.23.63.18 (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done: The source does not state that the 28 games in question were specifically Chicago Cubs games. I added a sentence that generalises this suggestion to be supported by the source. Actualcpscm (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2017–18_North_American_winter&oldid=1196748104"