Jump to content

Talk:Hurricane Bawbag

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

Former good article nomineeHurricane Bawbag was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 9, 2011Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
January 17, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 27, 2011.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the European windstorm Friedhelm was colloquially called Hurricane Bawbag, from a Scots word for a scrotum?
Current status: Former good article nominee
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hurricane Bawbag. 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: 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) 04:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hurricane Bawbag. 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: 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) 21:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Hurricane Bawbag. 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: 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) 21:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Hurricane Bawbag. 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: 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) 01:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Name Change

[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 section.

There does not seem to be consensus for Friedhelm or Bawbag. Therefore, as a compromise, I will move it to December 2011 North Atlantic cyclone, as at least one user suggested in the discussion. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone Friedhelm → Hurricane Bawbag – Jason Rees (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I Strongly Support using Cyclone Friedhelm as the article title. The nickname for the storm isn't the best option for the article's title. And there are several points I would like to highlight. 1) The consensus was far from "clear", and it was 9 years ago. 2) "Hurricane Bawbag" is a misleading title. The storm was most certainly not a hurricane. Any title that could potentially mislead our readers is a problem. 3) I haven't seen evidence showing that "Hurricane Bawbag" is the unambiguous WP:COMMONNAME outside of Scotland. We need to look at this from a global perspective, not a local one. And also, if the common name causes confusion, we should resort to the next most commonly-used name. 4) Using "Hurricane Bawbag" for the title is hugely inconsistent with how we handle other European windstorm articles. We should not go against the standard practice without a very good reason, and honestly, being a local common name isn't good enough to carve out an exception. Cyclone Friedhelm is thus the best option for this article's title. It's also as close to an official name as we will get, since FU Berlin's names are treated as official in Europe. Since 2015, UK Met has started naming storms that affect the British Isles, but before then, FU Berlin's names were accepted as official for the entire region. If we use the nickname for this article, then we should also use The Weather Channel's names for several of our North American winter storm articles, since some of those names are unambiguous common names. No matter how we handle this issue, we should be consistent in our approach. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On the matter of winter storm naming as a whole, I tilt oppose using the unofficial names for the article titles, for procedural reasons only. As much as I would love to use the common names for some of these articles, we had a massive RfC nearly 3 months ago on the same issue, and while the discussion got very heated, it was clear that there was no consensus to use the unofficial names, even though the unofficial names in question (Weather Channel names) were clearly the undisputed common names for those winter storms. I don't see that consensus changing anytime soon. We need to take an all-or-nothing approach. Either we use the official names for ALL of our winter storm/European windstorm titles, or we allow the usage of unofficial, common names for both some European windstorms AND North American winter storms. If this article is to be titled Hurricane Bawbag, then February 2013 North American blizzard, January 2016 North American blizzard, February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm, and February 15–20, 2021 North American winter storm should all be renamed to Winter Storm Nemo, Winter Storm Jonas, Winter Storm Uri, and Winter Storm Viola, respectively, for the same reasons that some users want this article to use the common name. Those North American winter storms present exactly the same case. In the case of Winter Storms Nemo and Uri, there is actually an even stronger WP:COMMONNAME argument, because not only did multiple media outlets use those names, but those names were also adopted by official U.S. Government sources as well. But we have to take a consistent approach here. Either we use the official names for ALL of our extratropical cyclone articles, or we allow the usage of common names in some cases, INCLUDING North American winter storm articles. Taking an inconsistent approach here would be a massive disservice to all of our readers. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Noah, United States Man, MarioProtIV, Knowledgekid87, Jason Rees, Berchanhimez, HurricaneCovid, Skarmory, CodingCyclone, Super Cyclonic Storm Corona, AC5230, ChessEric, Eyesnore, MarioJump83, Alucard 16, Awesomegaming, Calmecac5, WestCD, Elliot321, TheAustinMan, MetricSupporter89, Davidwr, Thespoondragon, Jpp858, Reywas92, JayJay, Vida0007, Matthiasb, RunningTiger123, Lowellian, Power~enwiki, P,TO 19104, Canucklehead, Lfax-nimbus, Axver, Jurisdicta, Twassman, Master of Time, BlackholeWA, KyuuA4, Springfield2020, LightningComplexFire, PeterPrettyCool, Keith Edkins, Cyclonebiskit, Hurricanehink, and Jax 0677: Pinging all of the users who were involved in the last massive winter storm article naming discussion, along with a few others who may be interested. We should take an all-or-nothing approach here. Either ALL of the extratropical cyclone articles use the official names, or we allow the usage of the common names for several exceptions where the common name sees widespread usage (including by Government sources), INCLUDING North American winter storm articles. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was clear consensus [1] that the article should be called Hurricane Bawbag. A new RM is required should anyone wish it to be called something else.Blethering Scot 23:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose renaming North American winter storms to TWC names. It does not matter whether or not the government refers to it. As was stated previously back when the issue first came up in 2012, NWS has rejected the naming of winter storms and giving the TWC names official leeway would be giving WP:UNDUE as many sources also refer to the storms as just simply “blizzard” or “massive nor’easter”. It’s the same policy we give to tropical cyclone names, we simply refer to it as “[date] [location] hurricane/tropical storm/cyclone” if there is no official name used. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 01:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how Wikipedia works. A WikiProject cannot enforce their consensus on individual articles if those individual articles form a consensus against that WikiProject. Furthermore, the consensus formed that "only official names" is very weak - it flies in the face of COMMONNAME which is a project-wide consensus - and as such, that's not a good argument to make. The note in this article makes it clear that the common name for the storm was Hurricane Bawbag, and as such it should be moved there. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the United States the most commonly used names are "Blizzard", "Nor'easter" or "Ice storm" when referred to by WP:RS. This is different in Europe as governments officially name storms there (my guess is that like Hurricanes they impact shipping). We have already had two separate discussions on the matter, the focus here should be this article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this - I was intending to point out that the consensus here should be on naming this article and doesn't depend on flimsy consensus about other articles elsewhere that aren't based on policy. The focus here should be on this article and based on policy and guidelines, as well as project-wide consensus of COMMONNAME. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Mario. We should use official names when they exist, but we shouldn't give undue legitimacy to unofficial names by changing our entire series of winter storm articles' titles (I strongly oppose any motion to do so). Master of Time (talk) 02:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support clear common name is Hurricane Bawbag and the article should be named that. This notion that Wikipedia must follow "official" names only flies in the face of multiple project wide policies/consensuses. Note that Wikipedia doesn't care what the "right" name is, nor do we care about fixing the mistakes reliable sources made. If reliable sources commonly called it Hurricane Bawbag, it doesn't matter that "technically" it's not a hurricane - and it's not our job to fix their errors - it's our job to follow the reliable sources. There's more than ample sources in the article already to support the assertion that Hurricane Bawbag is the most common name used in English language reliable sources, and it's for this reason that there's literally a note in the article explaining that it was such. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A note - the move against past consensus without a new consensus is, in my opinion, a contested move and should be reverted. While consensus can change, it's not appropriate to assume it has changed, especially when the reason for moving is in complete violation of the policies referenced in the old failed move request as the reasons not to move. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Support naming article Cyclone Friedhelm Are we REALLY still discussing this? Use the OFFICIAL name for these articles, not a nickname. Otherwise, we might as well use nicknames and unofficial names for all storm (i.e. Superstorm Sandy instead of Hurricane Sandy).ChessEric (talk · contribs) 01:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ChessEric: We
  • Oppose naming Hurricane Bawbag We have in the past failed to have consensus on whether to use unofficial names on extratropical cyclone articles. Personally, I would oppose the name "Hurricane Bawbag"; if we name it that, then we should name all winter storm articles where TWC names were the common name as the TWC name. We aren't doing that, and so we shouldn't name this to its unofficial name either. Another thing: "Hurricane Bawbag" is a bit misleading too, as it connotes that the article is about a tropical cyclone, when it clearly is not. Also, I hope this does not blow up into a massive, heated discussion again; please let it remain CALM and PEACEFUL. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 01:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose Hurricane Bawbag Hurricane Bawbag is an unofficial name, not AN OFFICIAL name. MarioJump83! 01:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    MarioJump83, please reference the Wikipedia policy or guideline that states we are only allowed to use official names. You may wish to see Wikipedia:Official names and Wikipedia:Article titles, which I'll quote from here: Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used - that is a project policy which is a project-wide consensus that cannot be overridden by a local "opinion" consensus here. If you (and User:HurricaneCovid for that matter) cannot explain how your !votes are in compliance with that policy, then your !votes should both be discounted as clearly against project-wide consensus on a policy matter. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Very weak support Okay. Hurricane Bawbag is the WP:COMMONNAME, but we have to be more consistent here. If this were to be moved to said title, then February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm should be moved into Winter Storm Uri. I'll start up a second RM if this is were to be moved. MarioJump83! 06:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Personally, I can see a case that this article should be at "Hurricane Bawbag" but not move that article to Uri. While some sources use Uri as the name, many of them don't name it at all and just refer to it as the "winter storm" or similar. That being said, I don't think it'd be a bad idea to revisit that too evaluating use in sources. This one seems pretty clear cut to me - much much clearer common name here than with the Uri article. While consistency is great, we don't need it - and that's part of the problem with the "official names only" argument is that it puts a false consistency above common name-ness and reader understandability. Note that Wikipedia has tons of "inconsistencies" - hell, for articles without a very strong dialect tie, any variety of English is acceptable, and there's articles about very similar topics that use very different English variations in their names and their article text itself. I think the consistency needed is that arguments that "it's not the official name" need to be looked past as irrelevant in article title discussions - not just here, but it seems that weather related articles have a problem with that in general. So long as we consistently correctly apply the policies, it isn't necessarily a problem if two different articles result in two different outcomes for their title - because each one will have its own nuances and may not have a "common name" that overrules the "official" name. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 06:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Bawbag per above. ~ AC5230 talk 01:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - using the word "hurricane" here bothers me as clearly this is not a tropical cyclone. This seems to fall outside the other arguments as it is potentially misleading to readers. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Bawbag - Hurricane Bawbag was the most common name and contrary to what people believe the FU Berlin name isn't as official as some are making out.Jason Rees (talk) 02:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose Any Name. Extratropical cyclone naming does not exist, not until the World Meteorological Organization gets involved. So a neutral name for this article should be applied. As an example, a storm from the same year in Alaska: November 2011 Bering Sea cyclone. For this, it should be December 2011 North Atlantic cyclone. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 02:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@KyuuA4: Actually, extratropical cyclone naming does exist. Both UKMET and Meteo France name European windstorms, which are extratropical. Also, FU Berlin names almost every low pressure that ever forms. While it doesn't exist in the U.S., extratropical cyclone naming does exist in other parts of the world. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 13:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I mean keep the current title as it is now. You know what I meant. United States Man (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I knew what you meant @United States Man: but it is important for you and other editors to realise that your vote keeping the article at Friedhelm, means that you want to breach WP:Common Name and override the title that was established by the community over several discussions just because it wasn't a hurricane.Jason Rees (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

was sconsensus established over several discussions 3 sep to realise that your support vote for Friedhelm means that keeping the name

@United States Man: I maybe in the minority for keeping it at Hurricane Bawbag, but we have to remember that this discussion is not a vote. As a result, I do not see that the consensus has changed when no one has yet presented any valid arguments for why we should ignore Wikipedia policies and the consensus that was established on this article several years ago. However, there is now a WP:RM set up which @LightandDark2000 and Buttons0603: should have set up before moving the article and will enable an outsider to come and determine if your arguments hold any weight. Spoiler Alert: They dont.Jason Rees (talk) 01:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We're not voting. Several here have presented valid reasons, including the winter storm naming fiasco from a few months ago. So it order to be in line with that, we should use Friedhelm and not Bawbag. The only arguments I've gotten against Friedhelm are "it's supposed to be this way" and "but project policy!!!!". That same project decided against using the TWC names, so the "policy" is ambiguous and irrelevant at this point. That's all I've got to say. United States Man (talk) 01:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@United States Man: The so-called reasons are not valid for the reasons that I have presented above, including the fact that Wikipedia uses the most common name which in this case is Hurricane Bawbag and the fact that the title was stable at Bawbag until @LightandDark2000 and Buttons0603: decided to move it against the consensus established in previous RM's. Wikipedia policy allows us to use unofficial names when it is the most common name like for example Bill Clinton is at Bill Clinton and not William Jefferson Clinton. Jason Rees (talk) 02:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on renaming. This is a tricky case, as the name "Bawbag" was certainly used a lot both contemporaneously and afterward. I wonder how much of that spreading is that the unofficial name is an insult, and a bit of a meme. Let's discuss the criteria for article titles: Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, Consistency. I'd say Bawbag is certainly recognizable, and both titles are precise and concise. Re: naturalness, because the name is a slur, I think it should be at "Friedhelm", and because of consistency, the article should remain at "cyclone", and not "hurricane", since it was not a tropical hurricane like most hurricane articles are. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not see why we should limit the term Hurricane to just tropical systems as it is not a unique term, as evidenced by the fact that this system was most commonly named Hurricane Bawbag and not just by the media. We also have to remember that historically tropical cyclones impacting Fiji or Maurtius have been named hurricanes, which further prooves that the term is not unique. It was the most common term for the ssytem at the time and was used around the world for the severe weather expierenced in Scotland, because of the conditions expierenced werent brilliant and thus is natural for Scots who remember this system. I also fear that we are making a rods for our own backs by limiting the usage of the term hurricane to just tropical systems, as the media will use the term hurricane even if we dont like it. We also are not here to right great wrongs.Jason Rees (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I would agree with Hurricanehink here. ~~ 🌀𝚂𝙲𝚂 𝙲𝙾𝚁𝙾𝙽𝙰🌀 19:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think naturalness relates to the "slurness" of the name - and we have articles such as Nigger (dog) which are at names that are slurs when there could potentially be another name. Obviously the name was "natural enough" in the general population for news media and the general population to use the name Bawbag very frequently. I thank you for at least trying to evaluate based on article title criteria, but I think your analysis lends itself to naming the article Bawbag. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Support using Hurricane Bawbag There was strong and clear consensus that this name was the correct one. It was moved to Cyclone Friedhelm against that consensus. As such the default and correct name for this page is Bawbag. Whilst consensus can change this move request should be taking place due to that consensus at page Hurricane Bawbag, the move request is severly screwed up. Hurricane Bawbag is the common name and sources are clearly available to prove that.Blethering Scot 19:54, 8 May 2021 (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:Hurricane_Bawbag&oldid=1228061189"