Talk:2015–16 UK and Ireland windstorm season

Merger proposal

Moved to Talk:Storm Abigail § Merger proposal

 – Redrose64 (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done. See the results of the discussion on that page. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Barney effects in Germany

We've recently removed the effects of Barney in Germany. Since Storm Barney redirects here and we don't have an article on Heidi, I'm wondering if someone is planning on using this information elsewhere such as making Barney into its own article? The information is small enough to be put into Portal:Current events too. Jolly Ω Janner 20:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Given the reaction of the usual sources to (I assume you mean "Heini"), there are no plans on my behalf at present to create a Heini article. Such a situation may well occur with future storms if the intent is to only include UK/Ireland effects of these storms. As the situation appears to be one like that which occurred with 2013–2014 United Kingdom winter floods vs. 2013–2014 Atlantic winter storms in Europe article creation. The consensus ended up being that UK/Ireland effects of synoptic scale storms should be kept separate from continental-wide effects. Personally I strongly disagree with national borders representing a limit to articles on such scale meteorological events, but a majority of editors disagree. I think the logic is akin to saying the USA names Hurricanes, so only USA effects of hurricanes should be included in the articles under those names.Lacunae (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

But we don't have an article on 2015–2016 Atlantic winter storms in Europe. I think we should keep the effects in Germany on here, until we have somewhere else to put it. I don't like the idea of deleting information, because it doesn't belong somewhere, but then not having anywhere to put the information... Jolly Ω Janner 00:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Kate?

Further information: 2015 Atlantic hurricane season § Hurricane Kate

Since Kate managed to trigger national severe weather warnings - shouldn't it be included in this article? Jason Rees (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Kate did not trigger wind warnings, which I think was the purpose of naming. Should the system evolve into a rain/atmospheric river/flood warning, perhaps so.Lacunae (talk) 23:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

There is currently no definition of what this article should include. I would loosely suggest it includes any windstorms, which cause notable effects in the UK and Ireland after October 2015. By our definition (or lack there of), there is no reason for Kate to not be included. However, the information on it is very minimal (limited to two sentences). I would doubt it's worthy of its own section and would propose a section for minor storms. Jolly Ω Janner 00:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The original circulation of Kate dissipated on November 14 based on data from the OPC. Kate never made it to the UK. Supportstorm (talk) 01:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

This is confusing, since many UK newspapers reported it as ex-hurricane Kate and FU-Berlin published a synoptic map with ex-Kate. Jolly Ω Janner 01:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The OPC is just one of the many agencies analyzing Kate as it tracked across the Atlantic. FU-Berlin may have interpreted conditions as a continuation of Kate which is understandable. Extra-tropical systems are know to become open and complex with multiple centers. This appears to be the case here. At any rate it appears that the original circulation that was Kate dissolved into a through before it was absorbed by a weak cold front. The remaining storm complex continued into the UK however. Supportstorm (talk) 03:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Justification for using foreign names

The inclusion of foreign names I think does not violate the desire of editors to maintain these as being "British and Irish storms" but does allow cross identification of the storms for non-British/Irish audiences.Lacunae (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Infoboxes

It's interesting to see that windstorms affecting Great Britain and Ireland will now be receiving names. I think it would be worth creating a smaller, unique infobox better suited for this article. The current infoboxes are too large, in my opinion. Dustin (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I definitely agree. I have been hinting with other users at the idea of creating one, but haven't really gotten round to it. Do you intend to create one? I would love to help if anyone gets round to it. Jolly Ω Janner 22:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Personally I wonder if we can just tweak the infobox tropical cyclone small to include a parameters for extratropical cyclones.Jason Rees (talk) 22:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by "smaller"? Most of the space is taken up by an image; for our three storms, there are seven (six in the case of Clodagh, which has not yet dissipated) further items displayed: Type; Formed; Dissipated; Lowest pressure; Highest gust; Power outages; Areas affected. Which would you omit? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I've been toying with the idea since the merger of infoboxes (thank heavens the merger between tropical and extratropical did not occur), the current winter storm infobox has been coopted entirely for other purposes, much to my annoyance for instance when fatalities without notification became casualties and was not notified/changed, and generally parameters have been repeatedly closed down to suit other pages. It seems to me that user pigsonthewing/andy mabbet will need to be consulted, as they have been instrumental in the rationalisation of infoboxes within the this area.Lacunae (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Since his name has come up, I am pinging @Pigsonthewing:. Anyway personally i am not sure of the need to be displaying Power outages and Areas affected in an infobox like the one we have on display, but would strongly suggest us either tweaking or copying the format of the Infobox hurricane small.Jason Rees (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

You don't need to use those parameters; in fact, none of the parameters supported by {{Infobox storm}} are mandatory, all of them are optional. If you think that showing (for example) Power outages is unnecessary, then simply leave |power outages= blank - or omit it entirely. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Mabbett. Two 'T's, please. If you're not happy with changes made during or since the merger, don't whinge here, raise your concerns on the template's talk page. And no, we should not be forking them again for a case like this. Your voice carries as much weight as anyone else's. (Thanks, JR, for the ping). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Im just commenting as an interested editor of other weather related articles rather than an editor of this page directly atm. Personally I would like to see these articles using the same sort off format as the TC articles with a section for each significant system. It would also be good to see the infobox contain both an image of the system and the storm track. @Pigsonthewing: Do you agree that the parameters of infobox hurricane small could be tweaked to include Gusts andthe Beaufort scale? Jason Rees (talk) 23:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• I think {{infobox storm}} could still be used if a number of parameters were added to it. A parallel to the RSI (Regional Snow Index) could be used with regards to the warning level issued by Met Office or Met Eireann (yellow, amber, red). Also, a bar at the bottom which states that it is part of the 2015-16 season (similar to hurricane infoboxes), although this will only be useful in pages split from here. Also, perhaps the date it was named. Any thoughts? Finally alternative names, since some of these storms affect other parts of Europe and go by different names. I've only come up with a few additions here, so it may well be a better option to just expand the storm infobox. Jolly Ω Janner 05:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

  Those ideas sound like expansion; I got the impression from the original post by Dustin V. S. (talk · contribs) that the intention was to reduce the size, not increase it. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

  I was indeed meaning to bring up the idea that the infoboxes on this page be made smaller. I think the main components of the infoboxes taking up space are the images, so if those could be made smaller, that would be of help. I like the thought of having an infobox for these scenarios similar to {{Infobox tropical cyclone small}}. For cases where a particular windstorm is notable enough for its own article, then there could be a larger infobox. Also, I hope it wouldn't be a bad idea to suggest having a main infobox for the windstorm season of its own? Dustin (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

  To me, a truly genericised extratropical cyclone box would be most applicable. And apologies for misspelling your name @Pigsonthewing:.Lacunae (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

  I got the impression Dustin was referring to the physical size of the infobox (e.g. narrower, reduced line spacing and maybe omitting an image), since there are lots of them bunched up together on an article like this. Almost all of the parameters in the infobox are optional, so I don't know why anyone would get the impression that it's actually making it larger. I'm definitely set on the concept of having the warning level included in the infoboxes somehow, since we currently have a separate table just for the warnings and it's disrupting the flow. Jolly Ω Janner 09:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be better to use track maps in the infobox. The satellite images look the same and are not as informative as the track maps. Firebrace (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Personally I find the track maps odd, not very informative, and so far at the extreme ends of being overly long and short. Another option perhaps might be to gif the synoptic development from the KNMI see Cyclone Niklas for an example. Otherwise there is the possibility that the Extreme wind storms catalogue http://www.europeanwindstorms.org/ may produce wind track animations, but I'm unsure how their CC BY 4.0 licence relates to their imagery.Lacunae (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I think we need to do images on a case-by-case decision. There are times when track maps and satellite images can be useful. First of all, this article suffers from not having enough prose and it's advisable to remove images where ever possible, at it disrupts the flow of text. The track map for Barney is not very informative; the storm goes in a straight line through the middle of Britain and Ireland, so convert the map to prose. The satellite image is not great either, as there are no labels or visible terrain; just a mass of cloud with no idea where the eye of the storm is. In conclusion, we should only use images in the infobox for more notable storms (i.e. has more prose), but I think the image has to be informative on its own merit. Using gifs are ideal too. I cannot decide on which image to use for Abigail. Jolly Ω Janner 22:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone know if it's possible to create a horizontal infobox. Something like this. Firebrace (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

As author of the track images, I created them as an experiment. I have found that there are far more limitations then I had anticipated in collecting data. Much of this is due to cyclones moving out of range of the OPC area, ei. further east than 15E. So if they feel incomplete or abrasive to the article, I'll desist making them. However, I think they are very informative by visualizing the progression and areas affected by a cyclone. Supportstorm (talk) 05:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, that explains it. Perhaps the Free University of Berlin maps might be helpful to you?(http://www.met.fu-berlin.de/adopt-a-vortex/tief/#aktuell)Lacunae (talk) 09:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I think using Met Office charts maybe more useful since they mark low pressure centers. The projection of the charts will make it cumbersome to extract precise location points from. I'll see what I can do to make tracks more complete. Supportstorm (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

For a start the areas affected section could be deleted, as it seems rather redundant .Lacunae (talk) 14:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Could it be useful for mentioning storms that affected areas outside of the UK/Ireland? Jolly Ω Janner 19:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox windstorm small

• For any of you still following this topic, I made a draft at {{Infobox windstorm small/Draft}} and an example of its use can be found at User:Jolly Janner/sandbox. The colour at the top of the infobox should reflect the warning level. Feel free to edit either pages. Jolly Ω Janner 03:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• I've completed {{Infobox windstorm small}} and used it for a couple of the storms here (Clodagh and Desmond). Does anyone have any comments? The infobox is also not UK/Ireland-centric, so it can be used on articles similar to 2013–2014 Atlantic winter storms in Europe or 2014–15 North American winter. Jolly Ω Janner 23:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Accessibility

The greying-out of names for the unused storms fails WP:COLOUR and should be removed, for the reasons explained there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Would you be able to point me to the exact phrase in the guideline which relates to the greying out in this article? Jolly Ω Janner 00:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The font colour is gray   which normally has a hex value of #808080. When text is that colour on a white background, it has a contrast ratio of 3.95, which is not WCAG 2 AA Compliant - let alone WCAG 2 AAA. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Andy, the gray text is set by {{tcname unused}} and so is at least consistent with other articles on storm seasons (see e.g. 2015 Atlantic hurricane season#Storm names). Thus, this is not really the right place to discuss a widespread problem; a better place might be Template talk:Tcname unused. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Raised there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

British Isles?

The title is UK and Ireland, but instances of 'Ireland' on the page link to the article about the island of Ireland (of which the UK is a part) instead of the Republic of Ireland. How do we feel about using the term British Isles? And why mention "alternative names" for the storms in an article that is supposed to be about the UK and Ireland? It bothers me how disorganised and cluttered the article is... Firebrace (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The term British isles is considered controversial see British Isles naming dispute. As for the use of alternative names, see above. As far as I am concerned the article is not solely about the UK and Ireland, but about the storms, which are widely named in industry and academia as European windstorms precisely because they are synoptic in scale and affect many countries in Europe. Given previous interactions with editors regarding the scope of such articles, I'm uninterested in arguing why a wider view allows a deeper understanding of the topic.Lacunae, though it seems to be a WP:POV issue.(talk) 23:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

British Isles is to be avoided on Wikipedia. Part of the ambiguity has probably arose from the fact that we are dealing with a geographical area (Great Britain and Ireland) and a lot of the sources come from the Met Office and Met Eirann, which almost exclusively publish information relevant to the UK or Rep. Ireland. I think it would be best practice to keep to geographical terms and use country names only when referring to jurisdictions of the met offices. Jolly Ω Janner 19:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Seasonal summary and Season Effects

Can this section have some additional explanation as to what is being shown? I assume the colour refers to the maximum sustained wind reported from UK and/or Irish stations (non-exposed or mountainous locations)?Lacunae (talk) 14:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I would really rather we didn't use the Beaufort scale to classify for storms. First off, it is a measure of sea conditions and yet we have no information on the impacts of sea conditions in this article (only the effects on land). Secondly, none of the sources listed in this article mention it. Finally, the conversion of wind speed to Beaufort is completely wrong, as someone has converted the wind gusts instead of the wind speeds (we don't appear to have data on wind speeds). It's as if Wikipedia is trying desperately to find a parallel to the tropical cyclone classifications. Such a thing does not exist for the UK, as shown by the lack of sources. The closest we have is the severity of weather warnings: red, amber, yellow and I would suggest using the maximum level attained by a storm as its classification.

Also the table isn't showing ALL european windstorms of the season. Freja and perhaps Roar may merit inclusion, if the intention is to show all european windstorms, not just Met Office/Met Eireann ones.Lacunae (talk) 08:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC) Addition of the season effects section as sharing many of the same deficits, comparing partial tracks of storms over a very limited territory is not really offering an objective comparison.Lacunae (talk) 10:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the refs, but please can a description of what is being presented be also included? Is it the max wind? if so, can there be a description of the areas included be given (UK and Ireland land based?, UK and Ireland specific sea areas based?). If we're presenting geographically limited absolutes, can we please describe the limitations.Lacunae (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

As I put the diagram into the page I feel like I may have made an error when trying to mirror the tropical storm version. Could something like the below work? I've read comments about this being more of a Euro-wide thing rather than exclusively the UK/ireland so maybe colour the storms by the meteorological institution which first names/IDs it?

That way we don't have ambiguity over wind speed scales/gusts/averages etc.. XyZAn (talk) 11:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

That would work very well if the article is moved to 2015–16 European windstorm season. I would also recommend changing the colour scheme to red, green, blue. Jolly Ω Janner 18:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Jolly Janner I just left those colours from the previous scheme, but yeah it would make it clearer - what's the likelihood of moving to the European scope? XyZAn (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

XyZAn, I have no idea. I know that myself and Lucanue would support it, but the proposal of splitting 2013/14 UK winter floods and 2013/14 Atlantic storm season in Europe was successful. I think this is quite a bit different though. At least enough to warrant a formal discussion. Jolly Ω Janner 19:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Jolly Janner, I think it's logical to open this up to Europe, it's not like the storms stop having an effect as soon as they leave British land. Plus it'll clear up any potential confusion regarding the different names givenfor the same storm/disturbance etc If/when you want to have the formal discussion re: moving the page, you have my support for it. XyZAn (talk) 19:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would support such a move (to a Euro windstorm season article, I still support a move to "Name our storms"), by their very nature, as they've been defined Euro WS are the "strongest" storms, and such a table is going to generally only show the highest values. As for the splitting of the 2013/14 floods and storms, that is quite complex and definitely not a model to follow (in realising it) as the storms page is, and has taken a very long time to be produced and the flood page has been a basket-case page subject to plagiarism interventions and a general lack of planning. I think after the season, it would be good to evaluate and decide how best to proceed. Certainly, there does appear to be an imbalance between editors working on storms, and those on flood articles. It may also be prudent to look into some of the input by user Kiewii, who as I recall, managed to make some good comparative diagram summaries of the kind proposed before the user became inactive. I'm glad the European dimension to these storms is being recognised, and I am happy to help users (in so far as I can, source material from European met offices/media). But in the meantime, I repeat the request for a more descriptive tack on what is being shown or compared.Lacunae (talk) 20:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

So, Lacunae, do we include storms like Freja or not? Why not move the article to a namespace which includes these storms which don't really have an effect on the UK? - it'd be more comprehensive. It seems quite simple to me and would almost treat Europe as a pseudo-basin. As for floods, that's nothing that I have any input of, other than the thought that the floods are due to the storm, therefore the storm in my mind would be the primary page. XyZAn (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Moving Desmond to own article

Moved to Talk:Storm Desmond

 – Lacunae (talk) 14:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Dubious source for wind speed (Desmond)

Storm Desmond hits North East: LIVE updates as Corbridge homes evacuated and 70mph winds batter region I don't trust this source. It gives no information of when and where the 70 mph winds were recorded. It also quotes "Gusts of between 50-70mph are currently battering the city." suggesting these are not sustained wind speeds, but rather forecasted wind gusts. I'd highly recommend removing this source and any information based upon it. I think it's best to stick to meteorological organisations when it comes to sources of information on such statistics. Jolly Ω Janner 19:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Plan for this interesting article

I am seeing this article for the first time and I am just amazed with it, because this is just like the TC season articles. @Firebrace: Since I've seen in the "View history" button, that you edit the most (I guess), I am planning to help you guys with this article even though I'm not into windstorms.

Ok, so first of all, there has only been 4 storms in this season and the page looks big already, despite there are some information for each storm. I am thinking to cut down the template for the storm and copy the template for TCs (the "infobox hurricane small"). Second, I just wanted to ask, is there a 2014-15 season and are you guys planning to make one? Typhoon2013 (talk) 04:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your help. There is not a 2014-15 season. This is the first year for official storm names in the UK and Ireland. There is a topic about the infoboxes further up and I made a comment on recommendation for what should be added to the infobox. Just please don't use the Beaufort scale as you would the Saffir-Simpson. Jolly Ω Janner 05:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@Jolly Janner: Sorry I didn't see a similar topic at the top. I just made my life a lot harder lol. Yes of course, I noticed, the Beaufort Scale is used. But is it alright if I can start creating an infobox in one of my sandboxes? What should I call it? Infobox windstorms? Typhoon2013 (talk) 05:19, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I think {{Infobox windstorm small}} is fine. Jolly Ω Janner 05:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

There is a 2013/14 article creeping out of user sandbox. and a 1990 one in development, (but those are before the met office magically transformed Atlantic storms into off season hurricanes) The problem is probably not the infobox (though I do have separate issues about that) but you should remember that these are not tropical storms, they don't last very long, and the editorship appears to want to only include UK and Ireland specific details, which further constrains the scope of the article. In short, I'm not convinced you have the luxury to be so picky if you want to fill out the subject.Lacunae (talk) 08:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: per your latest edit (addition of season effects):

• "This table will list all known windstorms that developed and affected over Europe during 2015–2016" this is a drastic change from the title and scope of the article. There are other storms that affect Europe and other countries which use completely different naming systems.
• "Classification and intensity values will be based on the Beaufort scale" why? Virtually no one uses the Beaufort scale and we have no citations for it. I'm wondering where you got the data for these storms' Beaufort scale.
• "All damage figures will be in 2015 USD." this is neither the currency in Ireland or UK.
• The damages column appears to be a personal opinion with no references.

In summary, there are quite a few improvements to be made to the season effects section. I would appreciate your thoughts (or anyone else's) on my suggestions. Regards, Jolly Ω Janner 08:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@Jolly Janner: Please, as I said, this is the first time I visited this page. The data for those storms were already there, which means that someone must have put the info there before. Also, yes, no one uses the Beaufort scale but there's an article about it. Typhoon2013 (talk) 08:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your help with the article. I have given the section some cleanup to be more suitable for the UK/Ireland. I've left the damages column as "unknown" for now, since I think it is a very useful statistics and perhaps in the future predictions will be made. Probably too early for now though. Jolly Ω Janner 09:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@Jolly Janner: Probably, I might be going too much because this is not really a basin. I just got a question, this will be continued in the 2016-17 season right? To add, the only thing I need to do left is the "Infobox windstorm small", which is a bit hard for me but I will try to complete it approximately in a few days. Typhoon2013 (talk) 09:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not known whether it will continue into 2016-17. I guess it will depend on the success of the naming convention, as this is the first year. I would like to help out with the infobox if possible. Perhaps, it can be kept in a draft namespace so that I and other editors can previous and test it before going live? Jolly Ω Janner 09:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@Jolly Janner: Sure you can help. Tbh creating the templates for windstorm colours were really hard since this was my first time to make really advanced templates for making an infobox. My plan is to find the 'source of code' for the making of the windstorm infobox from the code from "Infobox tropical cyclone small". Perhaps, there's another easier way to do it. How long have you been in Wikipedia though?

Also it's night time here and I need to get to sleep as I got school tomorrow, sorry. At least, I have 2 more days left of school. Typhoon2013 (talk) 09:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I made a draft at {{Infobox windstorm small/Draft}} and an example of its use can be found at User:Jolly Janner/sandbox. Jolly Ω Janner 21:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Nothing displays for me.Lacunae (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC) Might be an idea to notify WikiProject Non-tropical storms if even as a formality.Lacunae (talk) 09:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Try purge Jolly Ω Janner 22:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@Jolly Janner: In the season effects table at the bottom, you may see that I changed some bits. I changed 'Fatalities (Casualties)' to only Casualties itself. This is because you guys might not understand that it says the number in brackets is in casualties, whilst the number of fatalities are not in brackets. I'm pretty sure Fatalities and Casualties are different words. Also, did Desmond have 2 fatalities so far or 2 casualties? Because this might confuse people in the infobox at the top, saying Fatalities instead of casualties. We need something even, we either use casualties or fatalities. Typhoon2013 (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013:, the problem is that the infobox used to state "fatalities" and it was changed to "casualties" quite a long time ago without any regard to the effects it had on articles using it. So, the "casualties" are actually "fatalities", because the infobox is corrupt. Sorry about the confusion. Hopefully with new smaller infoboxes under construction this can be fixed (if fatalities is even deemed important enough). In the UK, storms are not measured by the number of fatalities. But I think it may have some importance in the main season infobox or season summary.

tl;dr use fatalities and only fatalities (Desmond caused two fatalities). Jolly Ω Janner 01:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Is it me or is this page becoming an echo chamber? we have an info box summary, a seasonal summary (now gone) the main article and to top it off a season effects summary.Lacunae (talk) 09:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I think we are trying to copy 2013 Atlantic hurricane season. The lack of prose seems to make it look like shit though. I have reinstated the removal of season summary (based mainly on it not having references though). Jolly Ω Janner 17:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the page is wrongly named

There is no such thing as a UK and Ireland windstorm season, this creation is utterly artificial. I think a more accurate title, and the one the editorship are working to would be "Met Office/Met Eireann named storms 2015–16" or "Name our storms".Lacunae (talk) 09:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

There's not really such a thing as a Pacific typhoon season since it runs year round, but that does not mean we don't call it the Typhoon season.Jason Rees (talk) 13:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Which again sidesteps the point I am trying to make completely, and brings us back to the whole premise of the non-NPOV nature of this article, which you're either determined not to admit, or are ignorant of entirely.Lacunae (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

First of all @Lacunae: You can drop whatever problem/stick you have with me as i have barely edited this article and just tried to provide decent suggestions like not creating new infoboxes just for extratropical cyclones when we can just tweak existing ones. Anyway the point you were making in my view was that you think this article, should be renamed just because there is not an UK and Ireland windstorm season. This is fair enough, however, the editor who set this article up probably thought that there should be a separate article for the UK names without knowing about other naming schemes for windstorms. I also think that adding a NPOV tag to the article just because it had the word British Isles in it is needless, which is why i removed it the other day. We could probably make this into an article about the European windstorms, but personally I am trying to keep away from this article and let it develop, while giving some thoughts on things going on.Jason Rees (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I have given you the impression that there is any animosity towards you @Jason Rees:, on my part I do not feel as though there is any, hence why I contributed to your sandbox recently. I am merely trying to voice concern that this page is being developed in a way that I feel is very anglophone European centric, and that in-keeping with the Wikipedia NPOV policy, a broader European perspective on these storms would be preferable (for instance we wouldn't have an article claiming Ireland as being the most severely affected by storm Clodagh, when it intensified and caused far more damage as storm Gorm in Denmark and Sweden). Included in this are the two sections I have brought up on this page, which as far as I can tell are specific to the UK, and take no account for the entire duration of the storm's lifetime, and therefore are not an accurate comparator between storms. I would also like to say that as for the NPOV tag, that was in relation to my wider concerns, and not because of a single use of "British Isles". As far as I can tell the Met Office/Met Eireann project is no more official than any of the other naming schemes, and may therefore have an undue weighting, these are not new phenomena, how has wikipedia historically covered them? I take your point that there may be many millions of British people who couldn't care less about the other foreign naming schemes and names, however, there are also many millions of other Europeans who will know these very same meteorological events not knowing the British and Irish names either.Lacunae (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology. I think its just the way you come over at times though and while I can generally ignore it, I just felt like it had to be called out this time. I enjoyed reading your contributions the other day to my sandbox and at some point I will copy-edit them and maybe expand upon them. Anyway getting back to the issue at hand your comments make me wonder what makes a naming scheme unofficial or official, I personally thought a NMHSS naming scheme would be, but then PAGASA on the TC side is considered unofficial as is Berlin. I also think that your argument would be stronger, if we had a previous windstorm season and or decent subarticles on the entire systems rather than just specific impact based ones.Jason Rees (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The best I can offer as examples would be 2013–2014 Atlantic winter storms in Europe which is slowly being filled with material from a sandbox User:Lacunae/29. The Norwegian, Danish and Swedish names also come from NMHSS sources, also The German names are widely used in academia and the insurance industry. Indeed the term European windstorm, to describe these events is somewhat of a linguistically neutral term to describe strong extratropical cyclones in Europe, on a scale over which they can be compared. (see for instance the European windstorms catalogue of Reading and Exeter Unis with the Met Office http://www.europeanwindstorms.org/ ). Given that these are synoptic scale events, and can affect several nations and can indeed strengthen over land, it makes more sense to pool information regarding the storms in single articles, rather than multiple ones, which cover partial nation specific parts of the storm tracks, at varying stages of cyclogenesis/decay. Coming back to your point, there has generally been no real need for yearly seasonal pages, as on average only 2 or so significant events occur per year. And only certain seasons as such, are notable (for example the clustering seen in 1990, 1993, 2013/14). What also must be kept in mind are the sources of information available, there is no single centre producing validated reports over the seasons and their comparability, so I do think perhaps (and I don't mean to generalise), but editors more familiar with NHC output, will find it difficult to find enough content for reasonable articles. So regarding this page, I think that what we have is a Met Office/Met Eireann project, in which it would be good to create summaries of the named storms and their effects, but I think with the notable multi-nation events, creation of an independent article, when notability criteria are exceeded, which can cover all aspects of development and impacts would be preferable. I think a change to a title such as "Name our storms" would use the title of the project as named by the MO/ME, and remove the concept that there is suddenly some special UK and Ireland only type of storm, and that they have a season, sometimes whole seasons don't have any notable storms affect the UK and Ireland (as recently as 2012/2013).

I do agree with you to some extent Lacunae, in that it's somewhat original research on Wikipedia's part to call it a season. However, there are some occasions where it is refereed to as a season ("Storm Desmond has become the fourth named storm of the season..."). So, I think we can establish that there is some sort of season here, but where abouts is rather ambiguous. I'd class this as a European season, but since there was a consensus for UK/Ireland-related weather to be seperated from Europe weather, I'm kind of stuck (if you wanted to reopen the case, I would fully support you). For me I prefer the title of UK/Ireland to Met Office/Met Eirann, as it is related more to the location. I'm partial to a move of "Great Britain and Ireland" to be more geographical. Jolly Ω Janner 20:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

There is a growing body of academic and other material that deals with these storms in what are termed clusters, series or families. The consensus for UK and Ireland weather also puzzles me greatly when the page as it is, uses a completely foreign and possibly ill-suited tropical season model as a template. Were I feeling really overly super-inclusive, you could almost give a cluster Freja/Binrasheed, Abigail/Frank, Barney/Heini, Ivar, Clodagh/Nils II/Gorm, Helga/Rudi, Desmond/Ted, Uwe/Diddú, Vanechka (to which you could probably add another couple or so).Lacunae (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Here is a list of future storm names when needed

Eva Frank Gertrude Henry Imogen Jake Katie Lawrence Mary Nigel Orla Phil Rhonda Steve Tegan Vernon Wendy Mobile mundo (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

http://www.met.ie/news/display.asp?ID=338 Mobile mundo (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Eva wind speed

Our current sources for both the maximum sustained wind and wind gust for Storm Eva is 85 mph. This is based on a BBC News article stating "Winds of up to 85mph were felt in Northern Ireland...". The source doesn't specify whether it is a gust or sustained wind, so we shouldn't presume one or the other and definitely shouldn't use it for both. The Met Office normally provide wind gusts for storms, but I think that since Eva was named in Ireland, they didn't bother. Jolly Ω Janner 20:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The maximum mean 44 knots (51 mph) and gust 73 knots (84 mph) at a low-level site was from Belmullet on the NW tip of Ireland on the evening of 24 December. from https://xmetman.wordpress.com/2015/12/24/eva/ (if you're ok with blog source) is ultimately derived from http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/datapoint/product/uk-hourly-site-specific-observations I think.Lacunae (talk) 00:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Generally this source wouldn't be reliable, but it is backed up by reliable sources. Met Eiriann confirm the 73 knots gust at Belmullet on the 23rd as the highest gust in Ireland in December. My concern would be that a higher wind gust may have been recorded in the UK, which wasn't picked up by the blogger. The Met Office published an extract about December's record breaking weather yesterday and said that a December summary was "coming shortly". I'm inclined to wait until that is released before going any further. Jolly Ω Janner 00:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

If you look at the table of locations, the data covers both the UK and Ireland.Lacunae (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

How can we be sure that "xmetman" has listed all of the stations and listed all of the data correctly? He even admits "...guessing at an arbitrary 24 hour period that I think best catches the life of any of the named storm." I would feel more comfortable in using sources from Met Eirann and hopefully Met Office. Jolly Ω Janner 01:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/METclimate/status/685524409554235392 I think you'll have to ref the tweet, I've not spotted them providing urls to these summaries yet.Lacunae (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

That's a good find. I'm happy to publish 84 mph as the wind gust now. I've also noticed that Met Eirann also record the maximum sustained wind speeds, but haven't put it into the infobox since it is not reported for any other storms. Jolly Ω Janner 19:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Tweet summary of Frank https://twitter.com/METclimate/status/686966494455042049 Lacunae (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I think we will need the UKMO to start posting sustained wind speeds as well before we can use them. While it is good that Met Eiriann post them, most wind records were in the UK, not Ireland so it is unlikely their records are the highest. Jolly Ω Janner 20:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Misinformations and other items of malpractice

Dear fellows of Wikipedia, it has come to my rather obstentatious attention, that a certain degree of uncertainty has manifested itself in these pages pertaining to the inclement weather patterns of the Winter period denoted as in the years of Our Lord 2015 and 2016. I speak therefore about the amount of unbearable and unjust practices as noticed by myself recently:

• Firstly, I note that the dates of dissipation, that is to say the dates on which the storms herein have ceased to exist, have had a tendency to be supplemented several days after the main events at hand. Sometimes it has taken over a week after the disintegration of a storm for its date of death to be appended to this fine article.
• Secondly, the editors and adjusters of Wikipdia have at times claimed that certain data are "unknown", which in light of the enormous amount of work the Meteorlogical Office of the United Kingdom of Great Britain (Though subject to the whim of myself and the people of Scotland, the 5.3 million strong country is expected to renounce its subordinance to the United Kingdom and become Independent) have done, is frankly ridiculous.

In conclusion, those, the chosen people shall indeed attempt to improve their abilities with respect to this fine article and shall endeavour to maintain and update the information therein as soon as possible with as few mistakes and errors as possible.

Notae Bene:

1. Let us attempt to congregate somewhere for the disucussion of this topic: Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Storms
2. I must point out the naïvety of the Irish in their insistence on foreign sounding nomenclature, for example, Met Éireann, as opposed the the more common sense (because people actually converse in this manner) "Irish Met Office", or even, "Met Ireland". Irish Gaelic is not very well understood except for a few citizens of the "Emerald Isle", who all reserve the ability to converse in English regardless.

Pablothepenguin (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is a rant against Irish people or genuine effort to improve the article, but I will apply good faith. I'd rather not discuss at WP UK Storms as there are too few members. To respond to some of your queries, the formation and dissipation dates came from User:Supportstorm, who has made all the tracking maps for the storms. I believe he gathers the data from NOAA and they refer to the cyclones, not to the effects in the UK. It is a very valid point to raise. I would personally prefer we went with the dates it effects the UK/Ireland as documents by the Met Office. With regards to "unknown" data, please go ahead and change it to another term or just leave it blank. Met Éireann is widely used in both British and Irish sources. Jolly Ω Janner 23:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

These cyclones have a tendency to form within the United States METAREA IV. Cyclones may traverse into the United Kingdom METAREA I in which the MetOffice may give it a name. What I'm alluding to is the information that is covered in this article deals with a meteorological event that maybe broader than the UK/ Irish area. If the dates of the cyclones's existence are too liberal for the prospect of this article, then I suggest removing the formation and dissipation dates. Replace them with dates when the cyclone affected the UK. Supportstorm (talk) 02:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

'Major' Storms

I would like to query what is meant by 'major' storm on this page. The Met Office and Met Eireann have no such definition of 'major' storm so it appears from the infobox that the term has been adopted to refer to a storm which had a red warning associated with it for wind or rain. However, the storms listed in this page are named solely on the basis of wind impacts and not rain. Also red warnings for rain occur even for storms not named by the Met Office and Met Eireann. Thus, if the term 'major' storm is to be retained, would it be more consistent with the naming process to only use the term when there was an associated red warning for wind? If this was adopted then there would so far have been no 'major' storms in the 2015-16 season. Revelina (talk) 13:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm really glad you've brought this up, as it's been bothering me somewhat. The use of "Major" in this manner does give the appearance of this designation being a form of categorisation. I've so far managed to view it as being just uncareful use of language to designate there being major impacts or somesuch. But yes, I agree the idea is completely unsupported if it is meant as a category.Lacunae (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I am in agreement with the both of you. I'm afraid I am guilty of creating the term, as we were previously classing it by number of storms above Beaufort 12, but we don't have such data. Anyway, no sources seem to distinguish between "minor" and "major" storms, so I will remove our classification. Jolly Ω Janner 17:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Units of pressure

Can I request for some standardisation of pressure units in the article. Info boxes are using bars, summary table hPa. It appears the hPa is preferred by the Met Office http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/units-of-measurement-faq Also, if we now have some infoboxes which don't automatically convert to inches of mercury, is this conversion thought nessesary by editors?Lacunae (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it is used by (some) American readers. When I switched my units to Fahrenheit on the Weather Channel, it started using inches of mercury for pressure. This article will probably attract some American readers. Met Eiriann also use hPa on their storm summary tweets, so I think that's what we should go with. Converting hPa to mbar is redundant. Example I propose: 996.2 hPa (29.42 inHg) Jolly Ω Janner 20:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

A couple of days ago I saw an editor claiming on one of the tropical cyclone articles that some random agency who i guessed was in charge of all that stuff had depreciated Mbar. As a result I think its probably just wise to use hPa and inHg.Jason Rees (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Just an FYI, inches of mercury haven't been used in the UK (one can assume Ireland too as pre-independence) in over 100 years, according to http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wea.20/pdf Lacunae (talk) 09:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Seasonal summary timeline

The key in timeline in the seasonal summary seems a bit pointless. Everything is either "no data available" or "≥73 mph". Yaris678 (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree. There are options to expand the wind gusts into higher brackets (based on Samphir Simpson scale), but this would be original research. In fact the current system based on the Beaufort scale is original research, as no metereological organisations classify wind gusts this way. Also, the impact of the storms is typically one or two days, so the length of the bars offers nothing on value. All in all, the chart would be better off as a list or being deleted. Jolly Ω Janner 21:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Re the European Windstorm page

As I've suggested here on the talk page for the article on European Windstorms: the section on that article relating to notable windstorms is now missing the UK & IRL 2015-16 storms due to this article, which in response to the joint pilot between the two countries' met offices. I propose getting that better known in the former article and seek thoughts and suggestion and possible assistance in doing so. For now I added a see also link to the article. Thanks. NJA (t/c) 07:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Map of all storms

We should make a map that has all of the season's cyclones, like we have for hurricane seasons. Calicodragon (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Though in order to do this, we would need editors who have the track map generator and access to the storms' track data. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2015–16 UK and Ireland windstorm season. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.met.no/Fase%2BC%3A%2BEkstremv%C3%A6ret%2BSynne%2Ber%2Bi%2Bgang.b7C_xdrW4s.ips
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304053207/http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/image/6/c/Surface_Pressure_Chart_261215.gif to http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/image/6/c/Surface_Pressure_Chart_261215.gif

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 15:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Storm tracks

Can someone add storm tracks to the last 4 storms 86.4.168.104 (talk) 14:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)