Jump to content

Talk:Hurricane Bawbag/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

OK, so what should this article *really* be called?

Yes, we've all laughed at the name, but it's not very encyclopaedic. Does anyone have any suggestions for a more appropriate title for this article? The official name of the storm is apparently 'Friedhelm', but that's not very recognisable. Besides, looking at Category:European windstorms, not all of them are titled by their official names, some are titled by the year and place instead. 2011 Scottish windstorm, then? Or should we just wait and see what the media call it? I guess it's probably too early to say what the common name of this event will be, but somehow I doubt 'Hurricane Bawbag' will make the history books. Robofish (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

We're discussing on IRC. ----Bruvtakesover (talk!) 17:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
IRC discussions are worthless; if it didn't happen on-wiki, it didn't happen as regards article content. As far as the subject matter goes, the simple fact is that the current title is easily the common name for the subject at this time, and Bowdlerising it certainly does not reduce the absurdity level. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It's being used in news media, including the BBC Radio 4 PM program and local newsAidanskinner (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

While Hurricane Bawbag may be the most common name, i think it would be better that we use something like December 2011 British isles windstorm especially since we are not being affected by a hurricane and will cause confusion.Jason Rees (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd support December 2011 British windstorm as a temporary name, at least in preference to the current one. Robofish (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely not. The potential for confusion here due to the terminology used is comparable to that of Hurricane Higgins. "Not accurate" is significantly further down the list of naming criteria than "most common" is. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that "Hurricane Bawbag" is only a common term amongst younger people. In fact amongst people of above the student age group I haven't found anybody who had heard of the term until today. The only media outlet actively using the term was STV and really they were just commentating on the twitter trend. I'm Scottish, I'm young (22) and I'm all for humour, but this in an encyclopedia. The storm was certainly a major event in the UK and a severe storm not just by UK standards, so I think it merits an article. Would it not be better to have "Hurricane Bawbag" and 2011 Scottish Windstorm redirect people to the article titled "Cyclone Friedhelm"? Thereby sending people to the article and having them learn something (the purpose of Wikipedia in my eyes) about the storm at the same time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexxxicide (talk • contribs) 14:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

This isn't really true. The media also called it "Hurricane Bawbag" including the Metro newspaper on its front page of 9th December 2011. Like it or not this is the name by which the storm described in the article has become known. It has an official name, of course, and in discussing the storm generally that should be used, but when describing the storm when it hit the UK (mainly Scotland in this case) "Hurricane Bawbag" has become the de-facto name. Previous British storms have been known by colloquial names as well, the fact that they were more sober doesn't mean owt. And, as has been pointed out previously, when people want to find out about this storm in the future they will search for "Hurricane Bawbag" not "December 2011 Storm, UK". --Zagrebo (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is a rough but clear consensus not to move as proposed. Policy is equally clear, see WP:AT of course for this and WP:official names for an informal explanation of this aspect of the policy. Andrewa (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


Hurricane Bawbag → Friedhelm (European windstorm) – This present name, while perhaps suitable as a redirect to the official name, does not serve as a very encyclopedic name for the article per the part of this section above. The windstorm's official name is Friedhelm and we would do best to have the article titled as such, but given the laundry list of Friedhelm articles on Wikipedia I think it would be best to disambiguate the title. I'm open to other suggestions for better phrasings of the title (perhaps "Windstorm Friedhelm" or something of the sort), but either way I think the article should be titled based on the official name. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 19:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Neither "not very encyclopedic" nor "we would be best to" are arguments based on our guidelines for page titles. "Official" is, but it's assigned significantly less weight than WP:COMMONNAME and there can be no argument whatsoever as to the present common name for this subject. This and other page move suggestions are well-meaning but misguided attempts at Bowdlerisation due to the perceived vulgar nature of the common name. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Friedhelm doesn't seem to be getting as much mention in the media, so I would prefer bawbags on WP:COMMONNAME grounds. In what way is bawbags unencyclopædic? bobrayner (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I just had a look at COMMONNAME for the first time in quite a while and I see that it says, in part, "Article titles should be neither vulgar nor pedantic". I think that given that this storm's common name is a vulgar term that in itself is enough reason to defer to the official name. I think the function of COMMONNAME can be served just as effectively in this situation by a redirect as it can by being the actual article title. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 20:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
      • "Should be" is not "must be". Furthermore, it is readily arguable that a large part of this subject's notability is because of the "only in Scotland" angle which led to its trending on Twitter, which is by necessity predicated on the vulgarity of the name. That redirection would get people to the same article is neither here nor there, as our naming guidelines most certainly do not suggest that articles with vulgar common names be moved to neutered titles as a matter of course. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Sigh...I don't know. I'll defer to whatever consensus says, I just think it's a sad day when Wikipedia chooses what is essentially "Hurricane Scrotum" for an article title when the event was neither a hurricane nor related to a scrotum, all because it's a name for the event that got popularized on a social networking site. While it may meet COMMONNAME, I feel that it does so at a cost to dignity that isn't well anticipated by COMMONNAME. I can think of numerous reasons to not keep this article at its current name that while they may not be policy based certainly appeal to my common sense. If y'all want an article titled "Hurricane Scrotum" there's obviously nothing I can do to prevent it on my own, but both the meteorologist and Wikipedian in me make me want to shake my head in shame at such a choice. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 21:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
          • I think that as a meteorologist you may be misinterpreting the subject of the article a little. This article is as much about the Twitter instance as the actual weather event, or at least should be if there is a reasonable claim to it being a notable subject. In time it may evolve one way or the other, and may be retitled or even merged or deleted. However, for the time being, it is absurd to try to "claim" an article which exists solely due to the Twitter coverage as a notable meteorological event to the extent of jettisoning the title which is its primary claim to notability. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
            • I just think it's funny how the people citing WP:COMMONNAME find an excuse to ignore parts of that same policy to their convenience. Auree ★ 21:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
              • I've specifically addressed the arguments made regarding the caveats of COMMONNAME. If that is "finding an excuse" to "ignore" said caveats in your book then it must be great living in your world where there is a predetermined right and wrong answer to any dispute that is obvious from reading the guidelines. Sigh. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
                • If you think it's notable because of the "Hurricane Bawbag" name, think of it not as Hurricane Bawbag being notable because of that, think of it as Friedhelm is notable because of it and go off of that. Also, if you have to, think of it as a WP:IAR situation (and that's something I invoke extremely rarely). So Hurricane Bawbag is the COMMONNAME...but is that really a title we want to use given that there is another equally acceptable (if not more so) name we can use? Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 21:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
                  • Also, the storm has been listed on the page [List_of_European_windstorms] as Friedhelm, without challenge since 15:00 GMT 08/12/11, which, while not long (22:00 presently), might suggest that editors more familiar with the pages surrounding these phenomena find the Friedhelm name more applicable. I also suspect that the name "hurricane bawbag" is less likely to be the common name of the storm as it moves to the east, possibly affecting Scandinavia. Certainly a re-direct from "hurricane bawbag" is required. Looking at previous naming systems of European windstorms, the German names are generally favoured (they name all lows) however storms which predominantly affect Scandinavia have been given Norwegian names, and the occasional storm given a descriptive name. Bawbag is neither descriptive, nor given by any recognised naming system, and I'd think does not fit with the naming scheme in place already. Also given that the name ultimately derives from Twitter (I don't believe it is regarded as a valid source for wikipedia) I think bawbags deserves to be a mere redirect. Lacunae (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
                    • As I've mentioned elsewhere on this talk page the article is not about the Friedhelm storm generally, it's about a specific event namely the day when the storm hit Scotland and parts of England and it is that event which the article describes and which was colloquially named "Hurricane Bawbag". It's for this reason that I don't accept arguments that it should be re-named because the storm has a different name - it's an article about an event, not the storm that actually caused it. --Zagrebo (talk) 10:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
                      • Hurricane Bawbag also refers to the name of the storm, just in the same way Friedhelm does. Also, we should take note that this article is not just about its effects in Scotland. Jolly Ω Janner 12:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Let's look at WP:TITLE then. It lists five things the article title should be.
  • 1. Recognisable - "Hurricane Bawbag" is now a widely recognised, albeit unofficial, name for Friedhelm. Certainly far more recognisable than the official name.
  • 2. Natural - again, people are far more likely to be searching for Hurricane Bawbag than Friedhelm, due to the prevalence of the former name in the media.
  • 3. Precise - "Hurricane Bawbag" refers to this and only this. "Friedhelm" would require disambiguation, or elaboration such as "Friedhelm (storm)".
  • 4. Concise - Both are pretty concise.
  • 5. Consistent - it's not technically a hurricane, but the naming format of similar weather events widely follows the "Hurricane X" format.

I'd say based on the current sources and WP:AT, the title should remain as is for now. Lacunae, put your crystal ball away :) what happens once it hits Scandinavia is unknowable at present. All we can do now is report what the RSs are reporting, and several have referred to it by Hurricane Bawbag (when they refer to it by name at all). I've yet to see any media calling it Friedhelm. almightybob (pray) 22:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

This page should be named "Hurricane Bawbag" because, having been referred to under that name, or having the name discussed, on the STV website, Huffington Post and now BBC Radio (http://chirb.it/8ahIkr), it clearly received significant coverage in several reliable sources that are verifiable, so is thus notable as a social phenomenon. Even if a consensus is arrived at that that another name for the storm is more appropriate, it would be incumbent on the editors to create a page for that, rather than rename an existing page for a legitimate subject.FrFintonStack (talk) 23:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep it where it is, Hurricane Bawbag is much more notable than Friedhelm Windstorm or whatever you want to call it. Adam4267 (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Move. As an encylocpaedic article it should use the proper title and refer to any colloquial names in the article. If we were to refer to things by nickname then we would have to start changing the names of a lot of articles. If so, I propose we move 'Manchester United' to 'The Scum' etc Mtaylor848 (talk) 09:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Bill Clinton, Snoop Dogg, and the entire Red Army would disagree with you. "The scum" is not the most widely used name for MU in reliable sources, as you should surely be aware, so that example can be discarded. bobrayner (talk) 09:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It's NOT a hurricane!92.8.38.208 (talk) 10:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not a bawbag either. Your point? almightybob (pray) 11:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

your overthinking it - if millions of affected Scots call it Hurricane Bawbag, know it as Hurricane Bawbag, they will be the most likely by far to search for it and what will they search for? Hurricane Bawbag! redirects from lesser used terms are of course the standard here, but the fact remains this is the major shareholder of nomeclature in use therefore it's the proper name. Javabyte (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

STRONGLY support a move, but to where? It needs to get the term "hurricane" out of the title, since in meteorological terms, a hurricane is a tropical cyclone and this was not one. Not sure the ideal location though - December 2011 United Kingdom cyclone perhaps as a compromise? CrazyC83 (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
As a comparison, many snow events have been called Snowmageddon or similar things by local people and media, but none of them take that article (or anything dab'd from that). CrazyC83 (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Based on weather models, there are likely to be several notable cyclones in December 2011, so December 2011 United Kingdom cyclone is not a very specific name and is why I suggest we used the name given to the cyclone, Friedhelm. Jolly Ω Janner 18:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Move it to Friedhelm (windstorm). ----Bruvtakesover (talk!) 16:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
What policies are these propsed moves being made under. Adam4267 (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Article titles covers how to name articles. Jolly Ω Janner 18:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes and as pointed out above under that policy it should be at "Hurricane Bawbag". Adam4267 (talk) 19:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose a move. If you want an example of the rightness of the Common Name rule then look at Caligula. That wasn't his name, his name was Gaius and 'Caligula' was merely a nickname he'd had since he was a kid but it's the name the vast majority of people know him by and so it's rightly the name the wikipedia article uses. Like it or not, when the Friedhelm storm hit Scotland on the 8th of December 2011 the event became known as 'Hurricane Bawbag' because that's what people started calling it, the media followed suit and it's what people will call it in the future. --Zagrebo (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

"Windstorm Bawbag" or "Bawbag (windstorm)" "Extratropical Cyclone Bawbag" "Bawbag (Extratropical Cyclone). The storm is factually not a hurricane, and to deliberately use the false term spreads disinformation, which seems to be rather unencyclopaedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.38.208 (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Disagree because "Hurricane Bawbag" is what the Scottish people and media called it. The article should clearly point out that it wasn't actually a hurricane (just as the windstorm in question's real name wasn't "Bawbag") but the common name for the storm hitting Scotland was still "Hurricane Bawbag" and so this is what the article should be called. Anyone looking for serious information on the storm will be able to tell it wasn't a true hurricane by reading the article so the argument about it being "unencyclopaedic" doesn't stand. --Zagrebo (talk) 20:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Strong Oppose to the proposal. The media have used Bawbag as the name. The official name is virtual unknown and use of it would consign the article to obscurity. --Stewart (talk | edits) 21:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

My bad for deleting this oppose; I edit conflicted a couple sections below and didn't think to check this section for the conflict. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 23:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
The article does not yet clearly point out that it was not a hurricane. The common name of Bawbag was coined on twitter and spread through twitter, I suspect this does not consider the population who do not use twitter, and so the name is biased to a certain demographic. also the media take-up of the name is patchy at best. Also academic and insurance articles on the event from what have appeared so far, use the FU name [1]. miscategorisation is unencyclopaedic. also, when you say "real name" surely that suggests you agree, the real name is not hurricane bawbag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.38.208 (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I tried to make an edit to make it clear and it was taken out in second so ...... [User:crazyseiko|crazyseiko]] (talk)
I've already stated that the article should point out that the storm was not a hurricane. Also, where the name started and spread from is completely irrelevant. The wider media (and even a local council and politician) started using the colloquial name when it became clear that that was what the storm was known as in Scotland. --Zagrebo (talk) 13:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose', As its been said above etc, what the Scottish public has called it, media has appected this, its common name, also this is AN ENGLISH wiki page, so if any people form other countries were looking for details there would be looking at there own wiki version, I bet the Norway and swedish wiki page has plenty of details of Cyclone Friedhelm, which I NEVER HEARD of until wiki pointed it out. Its also seems that wiki has no proper regard for Scottish people, I bet most of the people demanding the change of this page are not Scottish...crazyseiko (talk)

Oppose move. Like it or not this is the most common name for the storm in question. As discussed above, the exact meteorological nature of the event and the nomenclature will be covered in the article.

Another point, Friedhelm is not an official name, it is one which is given by an independent organisation (FU-Berlin), some of which are sold on ebay. For example it is not a terminology used by the WMO or the UK Met Office. I'd say that the idea that these names have any more weight than a common colloquial name is deeply suspect. yorkshiresky (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Does this section need to be split between hurricane/windstorm and friedhelm/bawbag? for the hurricane/windstorm dichotomy, windstorm is factual, accurate, and the correct categorisation. As for the friedhelm/bawbag dichotomy, neither are "official", both have currency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.38.208 (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Scottish politician used it on tv!! http://news.stv.tv/politics/286400-hurricane-b-politicians-get-in-on-scotlands-storm-joke/#stv_clicktracker_source=posts_also_read does that not prove something now? .crazyseiko (talk)

Oppose move, based on the fact is appears to be the common name; that it has been used extensively by multiple reliable sources; that alternatives, such as Friedhelm are equally unofficial; and that as an English-language encyclopaedia naming conventions must deal with commonly names in that language: none of the proposed alternative qualify in those terms. As an aside, it appears to me that those claiming the current title is "unencyclopaedic" really mean that it offends their personal sensibilities, which does not reflect Wikipedia policy, and is not a valid basis for governing the naming of encyclopaedic articles. Also, since users in favour of the move are citing category:European windstorms, I'd like to point out that that is a) not a reliable source b) now features none other than Hurricane Bawbag and c) takes us close to invoking Other stuff exists FrFintonStack (talk) 02:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose move. WP:COMMONNAME and other policies regarding names would all suggest that since Hurricane Bawbag is the commonly accepted and used name for this storm, and it has been used in reliable sources, it should be kept as the name. Joshua Lee talk softly, please 06:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

my personal sensibilities are not offended by the word hurricane, I do however find the use of the word to be inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.38.208 (talk) 09:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment, I'd oppose any move to a name based upon "Friedhelm" (at this time). That is the name given to the storm by the Germans, who name all European lows. The naming system is qualitatively different to naming system for "real" hurricanes. All European systems get named, irrespective of whether they bring hurricane-force winds or just a bit of rain (Friedhelm was named near Canada, there were 3 other named systems at that time [2]). By comparison, tropical cyclones only get named when they have gale-force winds. But the big difference is: English language sources use hurricane names, but they don't use the official names for European windstorm. The UK Met Office just issued severe weather warnings for this storm, it didn't use any name to describe it. UK media haven't really used the name either, and are unlikely to retrospectively (will the storm be the source of long-lasting press coverage? I doubt it?). The European name exists, but is definitely not a common name in English.

As for Bawbag, it has been picked up by some reliable sources, but majority do not use it. Its not really a common name at this point either, though it may become so. If you eliminate those two options, you are left with a descriptive name, which is fine by me. In such a case, both Friedhelm and Bawbag would be mentioned in the lead section anyway.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I say Keep it where it is. It's findable under its German name through redirect. I feel it will be remembered, and resurrected in the press next time something just less or just over hits - for the purposes of comparison. (I wonder what the Scots will call the next major one...) Peridon (talk) 13:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment. It's important to remember that this article refers to the storm and its effects when it hit Scotland and parts of England; it is about an event, not about the Friedhelm storm generally. --Zagrebo (talk) 13:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

So where do you suggest the notable aspects of this storm as it hit Scandinavia and Ireland in the english language go? if Hurricane Bawbag refers to an event that "hit Scotland and parts of England", rather than the storm system. 92.8.38.208 (talk) 15:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep as Hurricane BawBag, it is it's common name.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose Move, the arguments have all been covered above, summed up simply: this is what the event was commonly called, this is what will be searched for by users seeking the article. Pedantic Meteorologists and those with uncommonly delicate sensibilities aside, there's nothing whatsoever wrong with the article name as it stands. Splateagle (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Strong Oppose as per Splateagle. The Toxic Mite t | c 20:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Strong Oppose as per WP:COMMONNAME. --LH (talk) 11:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bawbag is not an English word, the word is Scots (a different language to English) Bawbag would be the appropriate name on http://sco.wikipedia.org and Windstorm Ballbag or Scrotum would be the correct title in English (I don't know if Scots uses "Hurricane" in a similar way Europeans use names derived from Huracan to denote windstorms [Orkan etc...]). People seem to think that saying this article is only about the event in Scotland rather than the storm system have rather confused me, and I would like advice on how they have reached this conclusion, and whether in that case, under what title this information should go under in the english wikipedia? 92.8.38.208 (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Bawbag is not a description, that we should translate it, it is a "given" name. We don't translate names into English equivalent of their etymologies (unless they already have a common version, commonly used in English). Are any sources calling it "Ballbag" or "Scrotum"? No. Further, although it is a name derived from Scots slag, it is not a name being used in a foreign language. It is being used in English (in Scotland). By your argument, we should translate "telephone" - because it derives from Greek not English.--Scott Mac 17:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Strong Oppose as per WP:COMMONNAME. Bjmullan (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment. A lot of the above people reference WP:COMMONNAME, but I don't believe it's been demonstrated that it's common place at all. Is there any cite about the storm that calls it 'Bawbag' that doesn't mention either the internet or twitter? The sources are focussed on the "internet phenomenon", not the actual storm. What is the article about? A weather system, or the fact that some name for it became briefly quite the thing on twitter? If it is the former; then is this really the widely used name for it (outwith twitterers)? Will people really be referring to it in even a year's time with this name? If it is the latter, then is a passing twitter trend really that notable? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 10:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

There's plenty of sources given in this section. Just have a read. --Leigh Hamilton 12:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
And my point was that the sources that mention the name don't use it in reference to the storm, they are talking about a twitter trend. Are there any reliable sources talking about the storm, referencing it as Bawbag, that don't discuss twitter? If we did we'd know the name stands by itself, outside of twitter. Otherwise all we have is a nickname, peculiar to one medium, not used elsewhere, and really only relevant if the article was about a twitter trend. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 10:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
True. The term "Hurricane Bawbag" is only refered to in 7/43 references (3, 4, 5, 16, 24, 27, 35). In all of these cases the reference is talking about the twitter trend, not the storm itself. The references tend to just refer to it as a generic storm, then note the Twitter users call the storm Hurricane Bawbag. No-one outside of Twitter seems to call it Hurricane Bawbag. Del♉sion23 (talk) 14:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I've found an article by The Scottish Sun and Insurance Journal, which refers to it as Cyclone Friedhelm. Jolly Ω Janner 16:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
In that case, I call claims that WP:COMMONNAME supports this article name as demonstrably false. It is not commonly known by this name and the reliable sources do not support this naming. WP:COMMONNAME states that "The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources (my emphasis) is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural." I see nothing to indicate that "Bawbag" is the most prevalent naming, despite unsupported claims to the contrary on this talk page. The storms of 5th December were not commonly called "Bawbag" on the majority of reliable source, and the cites on this page support this. To those who claim it is the common name, I ask them to produce reliable sources where the storm is called "Bawbag", that isn't talking about the twitter trend. Otherwise could they explain how they are determining that this is the common name?
Certainly there is room for the article to reference the twitter phenomenon and certainly a redirect on the name is desirable.
Similarly, for the record, I think "Friedhelm" may have a similar problem. It may be the "official" name, depending on who you want to listen to, but is it commonly known? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
In my opninion, this article does not have a common name. Vast majority of sources refer to it as "the storm", "last night's storm", "wednesday's storm" etc. There appears to be no common name given to it by the sources. In such case, Friedhelm would follow the pattern of other Wikipedia articles since the FU Berlin started naming depressions in the early 2000s. Jolly Ω Janner 18:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment. Unfortunately the name of this article contains a mildly rude word, and because of this all manner of links are being added to it, where quite frankly they don't belong. Does Extratropical_cyclone#See_also really require a link to this storm? not to mention it being repeatedly inserted on other pages that really don't need a link to this storm. Yes, articles should be named for ease of readers, not to save the headaches of wikipedians, but I think a different title would be less likely to keep appearing where is doesn't need to be. Lacunae (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that inconveniencing readers for the sake of alleviating an alleged minor annoyance to editors is a good tradeoff. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose per my previous evaluation of WP:TITLE, and per WP:COMMONNAME. Also, whether the name is rude or not is pretty irrelevant. And clearly such articles as fuck and cunt do not shy away from using a vulgar word in the title. I see no reason why this one should. almightybob (pray) 14:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Please could you show some reliable sources that use the name "Bawbag", and not in connection with the twitter trend. Otherwise your claim to WP:COMMONNAME compliance is unsupported. I see you stated above ""Hurricane Bawbag" is now a widely recognised, albeit unofficial, name for Friedhelm." How did you determine this? What sources support your claim? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Whether a twitter trend or not it shows the name was widely used to describe the storm in Scotland. And people are still using it. It is the common name. In no way is "Friedhelm" a common name in any way.
No, it shows that it was used on twitter. Anything beyond that is pure speculation, reliant on both the % of Scottish twitter users and what cross-section of the general population they represent. Besides that, Wikipedia contains that which is verifiable not what is "true". No amount of saying "it's true" trumps a lack of reliable sources.--Escape Orbit (Talk) 18:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Judging by your previous objections to RSs which refer to it as Hurricane Bawbag (on the grounds that "they are talking about the Twitter trend and not the storm"), I take it I am to provide an RS that calls the storm Hurricane Bawbag without once making reference to the origin of its name? Even if they are talking about the storm, calling it Bawbag, then making a note as to the origins of this name (like several of the RSs already in the article), that is somehow inadmissible because they acknowledge that the name came from Twitter?
OK, fine. Here. Nowhere in that Huffington Post article does it mention Twitter, and it clearly refers to the storm as Hurricane Bawbag both in the title and in the article body. Hopefully this satisfies your rather bizarre demand that the media use this unusual name without passing any comment upon its origin. almightybob (pray) 18:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it's bizarre at all. It establishes beyond doubt whether what is being discussed is the twitter naming, or the storm. And it shows that, despite the claims to WP:COMMONNAME, the media are not using this unusual name for the storm, they are using this unusual name to comment on twitter. I don't think you appreciate what Huffington Post is. It's a blogging site, not a reliable source. But even if we were to over-look that, something in the comedy section about a Youtube video? Seriously? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
It should also be noted that my initial objection was based not on WP:COMMONNAME but on the five main bullet points of WP:TITLE, each of which I addressed individually further up this page. I have yet to see any rebuttal to that evaluation of WP:TITLE, regardless of common name claims. almightybob (pray) 18:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Happy to;
  • 1 ". Recognisable - "Hurricane Bawbag" is now a widely recognised" - On what are you basing this claim? Not the sources provided, certainly.
  • 2 "Natural - again, people are far more likely to be searching for Hurricane Bawbag than Friedhelm, due to the prevalence of the former name in the media." - A false dilemma. It's not a question of either one name or the other. And again, what are you basing this claim on? Where are your sources that demonstrate this prevalence?
  • 3 "Precise - "Hurricane Bawbag" refers to this and only this. "Friedhelm" would require disambiguation," - Again, a false dilemma. There are a dozen different names for the article that would be equally unique and far more precise.
  • 4 "Concise - Both are pretty concise." - Not an issue.
  • 5 "Consistent - it's not technically a hurricane, but the naming format of similar weather events widely follows the "Hurricane X" format. - I don't follow what you're saying. Because it's consistent with hurricane naming, it's not important that it's not actually a real hurricane. Consistency counts for more than accuracy?
--Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
You are totally ignoring what everyone says. Hurricane Bawbag is recognisable far more than Friedhelm, Media sources show that it is the common name. Also the articles has had 251607 views [3] since its creation only 5 days ago. Which clearly shows its in the correct place. Their is no consensus or appetite here for a page move at this time. Edinburgh Wanderer 21:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
And you are ignoring what I have said repeatedly. It is not a case of a choice between Bawbag or Friedhelm. What media sources show that it is a common name??? Repeatedly claiming it's so doesn't suddenly make it verifiable. The majority of the cites on the article don't use this name. I've asked for reliable sources, yet the few ones that have appeared are discussing twitter more than the storm when they use the name "Bawbag". Which is fine, if that's what the article is going to be about. But right now it claims to be about the storm itself. And hit counts prove nothing. You don't know how readers reached the page, why they came here, or what the hit count would have been with a different name. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
The article is about the storm pure and simple. The name is only a small section of the article and has plenty of sources. Far more editors have opposed the move. Therefore until you or anyone else proves it shouldn't be there it stays where it is. You cannot prove its not the common name. Thats a extremely significant page count and i am quite sure it wouldn't be any where near that with Friedhelm as a name. Anyway you are against consensus so you need to prove otherwise not me or anyone else. If you have a constructive argument then i would look at changing my mind as I'm sure others would. As has been said above by chris only time will tell whether the name is carried on but until then we won't know. Edinburgh Wanderer 22:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Are you actually reading what I am saying? How many times do I have to say the question of calling it Friedhelm is not the issue. I don't care what naming it Friedhelm you guess would cause to the hitcount. How the storm was named on twitter is indeed only a small part of the article. But what the article is named is far more significant.
What I have pointed out is that most sources on the article do not call the storm "Bawbag", and those that do are talking about twitter, not the storm. This has been countered with "It's the common name, because I say it is. Most of media calls it that, because I say they do." What more do I have to demonstrate to have a constructive point? Please don't ask me to prove it's not the common name, that's a logical fallacy. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Then what do you suggest it be called because Friedhelm is not correct at all and if you don't think Hurricane Bawbag is correct then what do you suggest. Edinburgh Wanderer 23:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
How about referring to the majority of cites on the page and taking a lead from them? Or is that too obvious and boringly following policy? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 01:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
People called it 'Hurricane Bawbag'. The word 'Bawbag' is vulgar and so many media outlets used the official name but this isn't what everyone else called it. The remark about Google hits for "Hurricane Bawbag" and "Windstorm Friedheim" demonstrates this. In addition, as I mentioned earlier, the free UK newspaper Metro had "Its Hurricane Bawbag" as its front-page headline the morning following the storm. This was a recognition by a widely-read newspaper of the storm's de facto name. Arguing that "articles were only talking about twitter" misses the point, twitter is simply a communications device and it was a trending topic because that's what people started calling it. --Zagrebo (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
A cite for that Metro claim? Here; I'll help you. Seriously, does anyone have cites? Anyone not basing their claims on "because I say so"? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 01:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Your making this heated and their is no need for it i asked you a question now answer it properly what would you call it because this seriously is getting pointless. You say follow cites then it stays where it is because thats what they support. You don't seem to be arguing for anything here. The consensus here is massively in support of it staying where it is. What do you want it changed to and explain once and for all why. Edinburgh Wanderer 01:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Strong Oppose When I type in "Hurricane Bawbag" into Google, it comes up with hundreds of results all relating to the hurricane in Scotland last week. When I type in Friedhelm, nothing I could see relating to Scotland appeared in the top results. The media from the Daily Record to STV to the Radio Times plus lots more are calling it Hurricane Bawbag. It stands to reason then that if people come on here looking for more information then they will type in Hurricane Bawbag as opposed to Friedhelm or anything else.--5 albert square (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Case study

The Met Office have released their case study on the storm, which is located here. ––Bruvtakesover (talk!) 20:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

2/3 January 2012

This is a new storm, that should (may?) deserve its own article. I believe we should discourage this article being extended to cover a separate distinct metrological event.

As for naming?? - I have seen several different names being used on Twitter. What is the official name?

--Stewart (talk | edits) 13:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I created an article here, Cyclone Ulli. Bruvtakesover (T|C) 13:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Bawbag/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Titoxd (talk · contribs) 20:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    The prose needs tightening up, in particular the lede and meteorological history. Some specific comments:
    • Hurricane Bawbag is the colloquial name given to an intense mid-latitude storm, officially named Friedhelm.[1] — this doesn't tell me anything about why this article matters, which is the first sentence's primary role in the article. The article's primary claim to notability, that the storm "brought hurricane-force winds to Scotland during the week beginning on 5 December 2011", should be in the first sentence.
    • brought hurricane-force winds to Scotland during the week beginning on 5 December 2011. — this sentence makes it seem like it was over Scotland for the entire period between 5–12 December. Be either more vague ("early December") or precise (exact dates), but don't be neither.
    • The storm also brought prolonged gales and rough seas to many other regions within the British Isles — why not just "the rest of the British Isles"?
    • Damage figures would be nice in the lede.
    • At 0000 UTC on 8 December 2011, the Met Office noted a strong mid-latitude low-pressure system along a polar front to the west of Scotland. — it might be easier to just say "mid-latitude cyclone" to avoid the double hyphens. Also, the polar front is the region at the intersection of the polar cell and the Ferrel cell. As such, there cannot be "a polar front" (implying there are many), but rather "the polar front" (implying there is only one).
    • the cyclone underwent a phase of explosive deepening.[10] — the link to rapid deepening points to an article about tropical cyclones, and this storm is not in that category.
    • The minimum pressure further dipped to a record 957 mbar (hPa; 28.3 inHg) — the "record" bit is not backed by the references given.
    • which combined with the extreme winds earned it the label "weather bomb" by meteorologists.[10] — link to bomb (meteorology)
    • A FAAM research aircraft had intercepted the storm on several occasions as part of the DIAMET research project, providing valuable data on its wind profile, temperature and humidity.[14] — random raw external link
    • The summit of Cairn Gorm recorded an extreme wind speed of 165 mph (264 km/h), — sustained wind, or gust?
    • Business experts predicted that the Scottish economy suffered £100 million in losses — please attribute this to somebody, not just "business experts", as that is weasel wording.
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    See 1a).
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Some citation cleanup is necessary. For example, citation 22 has a different title than the title of the news article cited, and is missing a publication date. Other cites are also missing dates or authorship information (e.g. citation 23) or correct formatting (citation 31).
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Much furor has been raised over the article's title, and some have raised the point that the Twitter reaction is as much part of the topic as the meteorological aspects of the storm. Even if we do not agree that they should have as much coverage, one and a half sentences are not sufficient coverage, IMO.
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    The prose needs copyediting, the twitter info needs expanding (especially if you're going to keep the storm article at Hurricane Ball Sack), and citations need to be cleaned. Holding for now. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Titoxd, good feedback there, particularly some of the suggested changes in point 1. I always thought some of this could have been phrased more eloquently, but never quite managed it. I will work on point 1 over the next few days, and will do what I can to address point 3, although I'm not much of a Twitterer (Tweeter? Twit? :P). Any help, particularly on expanding the Twitter coverage section, would be very welcome. almightybob (pray) 20:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I've fixed several of the issues highlighted in 1a), although having failed to find a reference for the Scottish economic loss I have removed the "Business experts" sentence in 1a)11; Also, I see no issue with the rapid deepening link in 1a)6, as the article in question states that the term can be applied to storms in general (and, one supposes, the phenomenon is not strictly limited to tropical cyclones.) --Leigh Hamilton 09:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
It's been ten days since I put the article on hold, and while 1a) has been much improved, the concerns about 3a) are still outstanding. The article is getting there, but it's still not a GA, so I'm failing it. Some more points to consider in the future:
  • Add information about what happened in Scandinavia, since the section seems rather short
  • The meteorological history has an unfinished ring to it.
Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Personally I'm somewhat reluctant to add Scandinavian sources as the storm caused a fatality in Denmark, and I'm unsure if the page title is appropriate. If others wish to add this to the page they are welcome to do so. Kvinde dræbt i storm-ulykke (Woman killed in storm accident).Lacunae (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The link is broken, Lacunae. Bruvtakesover (T|C) 15:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Some formatting error I've made, try this [4](still in Danish I'm afraid).Lacunae (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok then, it would be great to add the thing in. However, as noted on the talk page, the name will be staying the same. Bruvtakesover (T|C) 17:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Just an aside note, "Hurricane Bawbag is the colloquial name" but so is windstorm Friedhelm, Germany's meteorology institute allows the sponsorship of weather systems to anyone that wants to buy them (cite: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16852429) The institute is the only one outside the US which names weather systems and is in no way an authority on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.72.120.131 (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

This type of article makes a mockery of wikipedia

This article is a joke. If wikipedia takes itself seriously then this would have been instantly deleted. This event is not even a hurricane. It is trivial with no long lasting repurcussions. Similar events happen literally every week (possibly every day?) around the world. There was no significant damage or loss of life.

Basically this page is about a windy day in Scotland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.61.247 (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


A "windy day", as you so adroitly describe, does not adequately describe windspeeds reaching 165 mph. On the Beaufort Wind Scale, hurricane windspeed is defined as being above 73 mph. As for long lasting repercussions (not, as you state, "repurcussions"), consider that the Scottish economy lost £100,000,000. Do also note that your attempt to delete everything within the article was quickly reversed by someone else who has more sense than a mentally challenged gastropod. 86.142.200.205 (talk) 03:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

au contraire if WikiPedia wants to be taken seriously it has to develop a sense of humour and stop being so poe faced American. All encyclopaedic contain jokes. This isn't a joke either it's the common name, it just is slightly Humorous and given that WikiPedia rules state that articles should be written in the conventions of the English that is sed in the locality. Then as the inhabitants of both the UK are Ireland are incapable of writing anything with a joke in it. Humour should be mandatory in all British English Articles. Ask Bill Bryson.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 16:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Completely agree with the original poster here. Why does the windy day that just happened in Scotland today - which resulted in more damage and deaths than "Bawbag" - not have its own page? Also, the event was not a hurricane - look up the definition, gusts above 73mph is not enough.
It does have its own page its called Cyclone Ulli. Whether a hurricane or not that was the common name and that is what we go with.Edinburgh Wanderer 19:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I think the "English language wikipedia"'s credibility is rather more damaged by the fact that two-bit American internet "celebrities" and minor characters from children's cartoons are given entries longer than those on some historical figures. If people are worried that this website isn't credible enough, they're better off looking somewhere other than this entry which is actually well-written, informative and reflects a genuine news story. So its common name is a bit humourous ? Who gives a monkeys? --Zagrebo (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Name

Officially, the storm is not a hurricane... and is not named Bawbag. The system was named Friedhelm by the FU-Berlin, the official namers for European windstorms. ----Bruvtakesover (talk!) 14:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The article could be moved to something like '2011 United Kingdom windstorm'? Not too sure on the though. But it seems Hurricane Bawbag may become a type of WP:COMMONNAME. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 14:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
But there is no point in moving it if it is proposed for deletion. ----Bruvtakesover (talk!) 14:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

usage conflicts with the other wikipedia I suggest the word "official" is not accurate and should be removed.86.11.135.22 (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

--Yeah it's not the official name, but it has VERY quickly become the unofficial name all across Scotland, since this is a pretty rare occurrence here, it is very much a topical point. Might be worth adding a link to the official page of "Friedhelm weather system" or whatever is there is such a page if people want to be clear about it, or make a note on the page that that's its official name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.14.13.229 (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I've created the redirects, Windstorm Friedhelm and Cyclone Friedhelm, for simplicity. ----Bruvtakesover (talk!) 16:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

At the very least, get the "hurricane" term out of the title, since it was NOT a real hurricane. It should get some more generic name, like December 2011 United Kingdom cyclone, if no other name is suitable. CrazyC83 (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
If you Googled "Hurricane Bawbag", you got thousands of hits on the first day, whereas "windstorm Friedhelm" generates less than 2000 a couple of days later.(10/12/2011) The name may be inaccurate, but this is the one generally used. Many Scots aren't even aware of the "official" name. If people are looking for info, would they not be looking under the name best known? (Why not place the "correct" name in parentheses?) In any event, surely the common title (and the page I looked at) appears to refer to the storm in SCOTLAND? Other countries (with other languages) will call it something different anyway.81.171.235.115 (talk) 11:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Lance Tyrell
The entire POINT of Scottish people calling this "Hurricane..." is that it's oxymoronic. The gale was insignificant in comparison to the Met Office and Government warnings, gentle in comparison to a real hurricane. (The term also has connotations of the 1987 English hurricane. Shortly after the genuinely destructive West Indies hurricane (?Gilbert?), that relatively insignificant '87 English storm was also over-dramatised by government and media, and was consequently nicknamed by the comedian Lenny Henry "Hurricane Tinkerbell". It has to be said that the Scottish public - but not generally the English public - shared that perspective.) See also "meaning of bawbag" below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jistaface (talk • contribs) 21:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that the German University FU-Berlin is recognised as the official namer of severe weather conditions in the UK. The contribution appears to be inaccurate. Additionally this conflicts with the definition for European Windstorm, specifically - "The FU names became gradually known across Europe through the media. Even though these are not sanctioned by any official organizations, like the World Meteorological Organization, they are commonly used. However, a storm may still be named differently in different country. For instance, the Norwegian weather service also names independently notable storms that affect Norway.[2]". On further reading it appears that what you are describing is just a student tradition at FU-Berlin without official international recognition. 86.11.135.22 (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Rename the article

Oh Really? I thought I was looking for a hurricane. I can't believe this. There's no way a wave cyclone could be a hurricane. Please can someone fix this for me? 76.124.224.179 (talk) 03:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Alas, we go with common usage here. Colonel Sanders isn't a real colonel and Professor Green isn't a real professor, but those are the the most common names... bobrayner (talk) 11:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Nothing has really changed since the original discussion and there are redirects to here of the real name. There are more recent sources that's also reference back to the common name showing continuing usage. Blethering Scot 22:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 December 2011

Can you please add the fact that many Bunnets have been lost during this weather rampage? BW5991 (talk) 16:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

No. almightybob (pray) 16:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Ah, go on. 86.143.206.128 (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Bawbag/Archive_2&oldid=1136356534"