Talk:January 31 – February 2, 2023 North American ice storm

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

Rename?[edit]

This winter storm has now impacted late January and early February. I can't think of a good title name, Late January-Early February 2023 winter storm isn't suitable IMO. Does anyone have any ideas on a better name to rename since this storm has now impacted early February? Tails Wx 17:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When it gets to that long of a name, I think the dates are used, similar to January 31 – February 3, 2021 nor'easter. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what @Elijahandskip said. Let's rename this article based on the dates, like the aforementioned article (January 31 – February 3, 2021 nor'easter) , since the "Late January-Early February 2023 winter storm" name is too long. Cyclonetracker7586 (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. What about rename it when the winter storm event ends? The conditions may persist into Thursday. Tails Wx 19:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tails Wx I can also agree with what you said, we should rename it towards the end of the event because it would be kind of repetitive to keep moving the article every day, but then again that would mean we will have to continue using the current title until the event ends, right? Cyclonetracker7586 (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cyclonetracker7586, yes. Tails Wx 19:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tails Wx I don't know what to decide because. I'll just let you, Elijahandskip, and other users decide. I'll go with whatever you guys decide, I'll continue uploading satellite images of the weather event on Wikimedia Commons until it concludes. Cheers guys :) . Cyclonetracker7586 (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I'm kind of disputed on the article name because we're in February right now, so I'll talk to others about this matter. Thanks for your input! :) Tails Wx 19:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NCEI deaths[edit]

I highly disagree with it for 4 reasons

  1. We’ve never done that split for death tolls.
  2. NCEI won’t mark car crash death tolls.
  3. NCEI isn’t always fully inclusive as can be seen with other storms.
  4. All other media report many deaths, disagreeing with NCEI and signaling an error.47.19.209.230 (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Elijahandskip: Please address this concern.144.121.66.230 (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NOAA has the official and latest information. That is how death tolls get tracked and changed. Whether you like it or not, NOAA’s official information says 0 deaths from the storm system. Officially speaking, the 10 TWC deaths were decided to have been non-weather related deaths. Also, what is your source on “NCEI won’t mark car crash death tolls.” Because that is highly WP:OR. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The November 2022 lake effect snowstorm also had no deaths. NCEI’s storm events database is really not reliable outside tornadoes, because it forces the event to be a direct storm incident. Car crashes are due to ice on the road, and NCEI would only mark a car crash if it was like a tree falling on the road. Also, Elijahandskip, WP:OR only applies to article content. And considering even NYT reports ten deaths, we can discredit the zero, unless we want to do this for every winter storm. 69.118.237.29 (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article would be fine the way it is then. "Discrediting" NCEI wouldn't improve the article. The split death toll in the infobox shows what the official death toll is vs the media reported death toll. The article also states the discrepancies. Multiple discussions have said NOAA info is ok in articles if discrepancies occur (especially with NCEI info). Since there is a discrepancy between WP:RS and the official information, both get listed. Simple. If you feel NCEI should be "discredited" (deprecated) overall or on this article, you can start a discussion at WP:RSN or WT:WPWX. Honestly, having both stated is the best way to show the differences in sources. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Elijahandskip: Those discussions were about tornadoes. NCEI is highly reliable at reporting tornado damages, problem is, it’s not so reliable at things like winter storms. Also, and you need to respond to this concern: this is not used in any other winter storm article. It needs to be all-or-nothing for consistency. Either it’s in every single article or we take it out here. 98.113.8.17 (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 June 2023[edit]

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: moved to January 31 – February 2, 2023, North American ice storm. Most participants agreed with the nominator's underlying argument, but favored the inclusion of the affected region and refined the formatting of the proposed title to improve its MOS compliance. Concerns about excessive WP:PRECISION seem to have been addressed by the raised example of February 2023 North American storm complex. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January – February, 2023 ice storm → January 31-February 2, 2023, ice storm – Should have dates, as otherwise there could be several ice storms in January and February in 2023 104.246.113.199 (talk) 19:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Adumbrativus (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:January_31_–_February_2,_2023_North_American_ice_storm&oldid=1215306630"