Talk:Hurricane Sandy/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Trimming GW

I undid the "trimming" to the global warming section because (A) a simple error, the track, extent, and some of the surge was attributed to GW not the other way around; (B) the main reason for revert, far and wide people saying GW had nothing to do with it relied on Hoerlings quote, which you removed. It was part of some edit warring here, and text was designed to make report on the a meteorlogist's perspective vs that of climatologist; (C) what's the harm in the supporting quotes you removed?; (D) text has been essentially static since conclusion of overwhelming !vote support to keep the section in this article. I noted from your contribs you took a break around Nov 4, so you might not have seen that, but it is in the archives. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Blizzards?

What is the justification for the "Blizzards in the United States" navbox on this page? The snow was brought by the Nor'easter that formed a week after Sandy dissipated. It affected areas that had not yet recovered from damage caused by Sandy, but it was in no way connected to the hurricane. --Alan W (talk) 05:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually File:Sandy2012filledsnowblk.gif per NOAA Sandy did produce snow in the US, which is why i guess the blizzards box is there.Jason Rees (talk) 05:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I know that Sandy produced snow, but not enough to justify itself being a link in that navbox. And not all snowstorms qualify as blizzards. I leave it to those Wikipedians more knowledgeable than I am about meteorology to determine whether the Nor'easter qualifies as a blizzard, but I really doubt that Sandy does. I'm still skeptical about this inclusion. --Alan W (talk) 06:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

What should be in the "Relation to global warming" section

This thread relates to a large revision I posted to the GW section. Here is the partial version that went live first; theen this thread and major reverts began; and later on I completed a section I stupidly left unfinished in the original. So for sake of organization but not wanting to edit war I reposted and then self reverted a complete version (not counting cleanup edits) that did contain that info. For the sake of this discussion please refer to the complete version NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

This section is about Sandy's relation to global warming, not about hurricanes. Please remember this. There should not be discussions about why people confuse climatology and meteorology; that's something to be discussed on those respective pages, hence why they are wikilinked. Stuff that doesn't reference Sandy shouldn't be in the article. This section is not about hurricanes' relations to global warming; it's about Sandy's. Inks.LWC (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is background for this discussion. As I drafted the revised GW section I organized the outline along lines of following paragraphs

(1) media question did GW cause SANDY

(2) Experts discuss how we have to understand such questions (e.g. whether GW caused SANDY) in order to intelligently discuss them

(3) Experts talk about SANDY cause (ie its formation)

(4) Experts talk about GW enhancement of SANDY

(5) Experts liken SANDY to what is in store according to future projections

In my opinion it is ALL about GWs relationship to SANDY but others mileage may vary.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

You did a great job finding sources, but there was some extraneous information there (especially that study that was "ironically released" a couple days before Sandy). I've done some clean-up for formatting and grammar and also trimmed the section down a bit. Inks.LWC (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if you caught it in the edit wars but IPCCs 2011 SREX study was cited as allegedly saying there is no evidence at all that these storms are increasing. The reinsurer casualty risk analysis appears to be the first work of this kind. If we can say climate folks think GW juiced Sandy why is the past $$$$$ trail (which you pay with your own insurance premiums) that demonstrates such things have already been happening extraneous? It is the same conclusion arrived at via different methodologies; climatology and finance. But I will await more voices since two in this busy place do not make a real strong consensus. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

But if the study says taht "there is no evidence at all that these storms are increasing", that's not about Sandy. That's about GW/hurricane interactions generally, and that belongs in the hurricane or global warming article. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

In this part of this thread we are talking about two different studies. One of them (IPCC 2011) was dubiously held up as saying what you just said. I did not include that one in the revision I posted and there is a talk thread about whether it really said that in the first place. The other study is from the reinsurer about financial losses due to climate change. I did include that one and you took it out. Of course it did not mention Sandy since it - ironically - predated Sandy by a couple weeks. We have said climate guys say GW can enhance these things. I believe it is equally relevant to say that the insurance industry has just shown for the FIRST time that its books say it is already (past tense) taking hits because of GW enhanced severe weather. You and I pay those losses. But whatever; I will let it lie unless there is a chorus of others who want to add it back. The condensation is not what I wished - obviously - but if it was to be kept in condensed form your version was done reasonably well. Thanks for the effort you put into it.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps an Effects of climate change on tropical cyclones article could be warranted (that could be discussed at WP:HURRICANE), and then we can link the Sandy subsection to that. I just don't see a way around putting the study in there and tying it to Sandy without technically violating WP:OR. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Whar we need is a secondary source pointing out the implications of the reinsurer's report in the context of Sandy: for example In Hurricane Sandy's Fury, The Fingerprint Of Climate Change. . . dave souza, talk 13:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• I've changed the sequence to match the progress of development of the storm/change of course due to blocking high/impact on New Jersey and New York. I've also used the same source to note the historical sea level rise in that particular area: as CNN reported, "Throughout the 20th century, sea levels were rising as a result of the warming of the oceans and the melting of ice in glaciers. This rise, which varies from place to place depending on patterns of wind and ocean currents, has been about a foot in the New York harbor." Thus it's also correct for Dr. Katharine Hayhoe to say "that on average, sea levels have gone up about seven inches in the last hundred years in the U.S. because of climate change. 'So when any hurricane occurs, you now have an extra seven inches of height on the storm surges'.” There may also be an issue of increased rainfall due to the warmer atmosphere which could follow on after the storm surge. . dave souza, talk 13:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Wonkish blog covering sea level issues: Yes, Hurricane Sandy is a good reason to worry about climate change. and Chris Mooney[1] links to Rising Sea Level Puts East Coast At Risk : Discovery News. . dave souza, talk 13:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Can we get a better title than Relation to global warming? Sandy's relation to global warming does not make a lot of sense. Sandy had zero causal relation to global warming. Global warming had a causal relation to the size and magnitude of Sandy, not that Sandy reached hurricane strength. How about Impact of global warming? Or Affects from global warming. Even Relationship from global warming would be better. Apteva (talk) 04:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Working with Trenberths quote Storm enhancement due to global warming? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

How about just Global warming Apteva (talk) 16:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Works for me. Inks.LWC (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Additional Energy due to Global Warming

This "The storm acquired additional energy from unusually warm currents off the North American East Coast. Global warming has been identified as contributing 0.6°C of 3°C above normal sea surface temperatures from Florida to Canada." appears to be wrong. When hurricanes move North they move over cooler water and lose strength. As the NOVA PBS program pointed out, the path of Sandy followed a warm current (Gulf Stream) as it moved North so it did not lose strength. The statement that it gained strength due to warm water appears to be totally wrong. It gained strength as it moved up the East Coast of the US due to the interaction with the large cold front (the nor'easter). Some additional research is needed since a TV show is not adequate citation -- currently there is no citation at all for this. IAC, I do not think that this question belongs in the Global Warming question since there is only the secondary question of whether the Gulf Stream is warmer due to Global Warming -- it probably is. Tyrerj (talk) 12:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

actually there was/is a ref. Two sentences shared the same one. Some eds think marking each is clutter, but since you challenged sentence 1 I marked it too.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The neutrality of this section of the article is disputed.

Click thumb for source-data citation details; CC licensed image by www.SkepticalScience.com

The entire section should be removed because it is based on speculations but not facts. It is necessary to provide evidence for the cause of the warming of the waters in the Atlantic Ocean in 2012. The warming is most likely to have been caused by the submarine eruption of the El Hierro volcano from October 2011 - March 2012 (see http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/2011-2012_El_Hierro_eruption). (User:Wwsyim 22 December 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 15:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Since this is wikipedia, it is not necessary to provide evidence, but rather it is necessary to provide reliable sources. According to the professional peer-reviewed science literature, global observations even from the deep show ocean temps overall are rising, globally. Even the deep super cold basins off Antarctica are slowly warming. Which holds more heat, your bathtub or the air in your bathroom? With most of earth's surface covered by the sea, it should be no big surprise that recent peer reviewed professional scientific literature answers the question "Where does global warming go?" as shown in the image. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

This section damages the credibility of Wikipedia. It should be removed. This is supposed to be an article on Hurricane Sandy, not on a speculative theory of Global Warming. 1) The opening statement is inappropriate. This is a speculative statement and not based on science. "According to NCAR senior climatologist Kevin E. Trenberth, "The answer to the oft-asked question of whether an event is caused by climate change is that it is the wrong question. All weather events are affected by climate change because the environment in which they occur is warmer and moister than it used to be."[34] He illustrates by pointing out that steroids in a baseball player's system do not cause home runs all by themselves but do make home runs more likely" 2)The quote from Mr. Mann is also inappropriate. "Measured sea level at New York and along the New Jersey coast has increased by nearly a foot over the last hundred years.[41] Climatologist Michael E. Mann attributes at least one foot of the 13-foot storm surge in Lower Manhattan to global sea level rise" Both of these scientists have tarnished credibility due to past misconduct. They are both top advocates for claiming 'global warming'. Neither of them has studied hurricanes. 3) There is not countering statement from hurricane experts such as Max Mayfield. See his statement here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2007/12/10/22940/statement-of-max-mayfield-former.html Pikachudad (talk) 16:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

(A) Your link is from 2007 so is of little WP:WEIGHT. (B) With a miniscule effort a neutral third party would have actual knowledge of the multiple investigations that found these guys did OK, and the neutral third party would probably conclude that there is no reasonable basis to believe the claims you make. In other words, you come very close to committing libel and slander with your attack on these individuals' reputations, and that is not an persuasive argument for generating consensus.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

"Superstorm Sandy"

I've noticed there have been a lot of reverts in relation to this name. The only problem I have with adding it would be that it needs to be sourced. But then again, there seem to be plenty to use. Thoughts? TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Unscientific media nonsense. I don't have a problem with adding it to some section about unscientific media nonsense, but I do have a problem with adding it in bold face to the lede. I suppose it comes down to whether we're going to treat this article like something from Science, or like something from the New York Post. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 01:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Kafziel. There is no such thing as a Superstorm unless a storm system is given that name by NOAA or its smaller divisions. A name that is used by news media is not official and should not be used. United States Man (talk) 02:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) While I agree, yes, this is unscientific media nonsense, the point that TAWX is trying to make is, should you include if various NOAA divisions do attach such a name. If you clicked on the link he provided, you would see that multiple Eastern Region Headquarter - WFOs use the name in reports on Sandy. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 03:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

That's the thing though. It has been given the name by NOAA subdivisions. Several NWS offices have dubbed it as Superstorm Sandy. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

In casual, passing use on websites and media releases, not in any scientific publications. And nowhere in any of those uses does anyone suggest that it's some new class of hurricane. There's no such thing. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 03:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

And they're not meant to. The "Superstorm" is a nickname but it has significance because it relays how devastating and rare Sandy was. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Which takes us back to deciding whether the article is going to be scientific or sensationalistic. Since this is an encyclopedia, and not a tabloid, my money is on keeping it scientific. As I said, I don't mind mentioning it in a section about the media hype or something, but the introduction should not refer to it as a superstorm, because it wasn't. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 04:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

And that, in return, takes us back to the fact that it's not "media hype" or "sensationalistic". The term "Superstorm Sandy" has been used by many local National Weather Service offices, and they are very much scientific. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 04:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

No, they're not. As you yourself said, they're not meant to be. It's just a nickname. There's a vast difference between something being mentioned in passing on a website and being published in a scientific journal. Maybe the solution to this would be to create a Sandy version of Media coverage of Hurricane Katrina. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 04:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It's a nickname with significance. Just like the 1926 Miami hurricane, which is dubbed as the Great Miami hurricane in its article and the 1928 Obeechobee hurricane, which is dubbed as the San Felipe Segundo hurricane in its article. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 13:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC) TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 13:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Note that those other nicknames still have the word "hurricane". They don't imply that the storms were anything else. This one does - it seems to even have duped you into thinking there's something scientific about it, or at least being confused about its status, which is surprising since I know you're into hurricanes. That's precisely the problem. Think how much worse it is for people who don't know about this stuff. It's too confusing to readers unless we specifically state that it's a completely made-up term invented by the media. "Sandy" is the nickname - those other storms were before they started giving storms women's names. "Superstorm" doesn't have any more significance than "Frankenstorm", "Snoreastercane", or any of the others in the long list of nonsensical nicknames it had back when we were all first discussing this in October. The storm just happened to stop while the media were on that one. Again, I don't have a problem with including the term somewhere else besides the lede. But it's too confusing otherwise. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 17:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we should include it, given the widespread use after the storm. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't, because it's unscientific media hype. There, your vote is nullified. HiLo48 (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

How is my vote nullified? This isn't a vote by any means, it's a discussion. The name "Superstorm Sandy" was very widely used after the storm, and it still is to an extent. It should very much be included in the lede, ideally in the first sentence. Unlike "Frankenstorm" and "Snoreastercane", "Superstorm Sandy" is used as the quasi-official name from some organizations. Red Cross says " One-Month Report on Superstorm Sandy". The Red Cross! And it's still used by media organizations. As an encyclopedia, we should be reporting on what other people call it, so I think we should do just that. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

You've really just proved my point by listing those sources. It's unscientific media hype. It helps nobody understand what it was and what happened. HiLo48 (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

How is the Red Cross media hype? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

How is the Red Cross involved in naming Hurricanes? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 19:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

And another thing - as an encyclopedia, we shouldn't be "reporting" on anything. We should be writing scholarly, educational, encyclopedic articles and using reliable sources. We're not obliged to give equal time to everything, and we certainly don't have to include every possible wrong name for something. Readers can still find it by looking for Superstorm Sandy; that's what redirects are for. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 19:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not every possible wrong name, it's the inclusion of one additional name that is widely used. We're supposed to reflect what sources talk about the storm. We're supposed to be WP:NPOV, and excluding a very common name for the event is biased against the term. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

"Biased against the term"? Come on. That's not what NPOV is about, and I would hope you know that. We are not supposed to reflect what all possible sources say, we're supposed to use reliable sources to support what we say. The name of the hurricane is a matter of fact, not a matter of point of view. What the media called it is also a fact (and that is what your sources support) and could be included elsewhere, as I already said in the previous conversation directly above. But no matter how many media outlets called it a superstorm, that still isn't its name and should not be in the lede. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 20:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Again though, this is a large number of reliable sources that call it a Superstorm. To be fair, it wasn't a hurricane at landfall, so the media-preferred term makes sense to be included. And yes, I would argue it falls under a point of view dispute. Ordinarily, I would agree to only include the official name in the lede. I think this storm warrants an exception. We should include what is one of the most common names of the storm. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

That post really is saying "It's what I would like to see." It's simply your opinion. This has to be primarily a scientific article, and must remain encyclopaedic. "Superstorm Sandy" is neither scientific nor encyclopaedic. And that's NOT an opinion. It's fact. HiLo48 (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It may not be, but it's a name that has been used by many governmental agencies, which, in itself, shows the significance of that term. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

(to HiLo48) Totally disagreed. The name Superstorm Sandy is very much encyclopediac. If we're documenting the summation of human knowledge, then it is a disservice not including one of the most common names for the event. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

We are not documenting the sum of human knowledge. We are writing an encyclopedia. If we were documenting the sum of human knowledge, we wouldn't have guidelines about notability and undue weight and we could include all manner of indiscriminate information. Now, I'm not saying the term doesn't exist, and that there's no place for it whatsoever. But do you really think not writing "Superstorm Sandy" in the lede constitutes a disservice to all of humanity? That seems a little exaggerated. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 22:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you answered the wrong part of my comment. Why should the second-most common name for the event not be included? I think it's a notable enough term that warrants inclusion. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I already answered it. So did HiLo48: It is not a name of the storm, second-most-common or otherwise. It is perhaps the second-most-common thing the media called it, but it is not its name in any way, shape or form. You could say it is the most common wrong name, but we don't have to include the most common wrong name of things in ledes. "Sandy" is the nickname. It was a hurricane, a post-tropical cyclone, whatever, but in absolutely no case was it ever a superstorm, because: There. Is. No. Such. Thing. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 02:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It very much is a name for the storm. How can you say that when people refer to the storm with that name? Would a rose by any other name smell as sweet? Would a hurricane by any other name be as destructive? It doesn't matter if scientifically there isn't something called a superstorm, since that has become a very common name for the storm. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

You got one thing right in that post. It WAS a hurricane. Hurricane Sandy. No other name is needed. HiLo48 (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec) And now we're back to the very first thing I wrote in this section, waaaaaay back up at the top: I suppose it comes down to whether we're going to treat this article like something from Science, or like something from the New York Post. It does matter if is there isn't something called a superstorm, because this is supposed to be a scientific, encyclopedic article. And we're supposed to use real words, not neologisms. And we don't have to give credence to every imaginary media catch phrase. The media doesn't get to name storms. Not even if they all get together and have a vote.

I can't believe I'm explaining this stuff to a guy named Hurricanehink and a guy named TropicalAnalyst, but the World Meteorological Organization's Regional Association IV Hurricane Committee selects the names for Atlantic Basin and central and eastern Pacific storms, and that's that. There's no runner-up. It has one name, and everything else is hype. Make a redirect, sure. Mention it in conjunction with other media hype, fine. But it is not its name. Not in any way. That's not my point of view, that's a fact. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 03:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not saying what you said is false; however, it is a name. Is it an offical name? Absolutely not. However, I think it is notable enough for it to be included in the lead. Same reason why in Cyclone Ofa, the name "Hurricane Ofa" is mentioned in the lead. Why? Because that is what the media called it. We IMO should maintain a neutral point of view and respect both the media and the WMO. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Whose media named Cyclone Ofa, Hurricane Ofa? No doubt the Americans associated with Samoa, and that's OK, because hurricane and cyclone are understood as two of the acceptable names for this kind of weather phenomenon, and those of us in the region where cyclone is the correct name can cope with Americans wanting to use their usual terminology. None of this, however, justifies the use of a new, scientifically meaningless term like superstorm. HiLo48 (talk) 03:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

What does the science matter in this discussion? The name "superstorm" is widely used, so it should be used. Plain and simple. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It matters because this is a science subject. You guys are basically saying "I want it", and then trying to find whatever reasons will fly. First they said it should be included because it is scientific (at the start of this conversation), then when you all have to admit that that's not true, you say it's POV not to include it. When I say that's nonsense, then you say it's because it's one of its other names. But isn't. It has one name, and I explained that, but at this point you've clearly decided to ignore whatever anyone says that you don't like, and talk in circles. Well, I'm here to tell you, I'm not going anywhere. I took all my other admin stuff off my watchlist just to make time for this. So you guys can discuss it sensibly, or we can just go back to adding it and removing it until somebody gets tired of it. I won't get tired. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 16:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll be watching too. The meteorological world has enough difficulty anyway with varying official names for this kind of storm around the globe, in the form of typhoon, cyclone and hurricane (the latter also being a formal name for a particular range of wind speeds). Superstorm Sandy serves no scientific purpose. It is an appealing alliterative tool for headline writers and people trying to attract attention with their verbal presentation. That's ALL it is. Neither the meteorological world nor Wikipedia needs it. HiLo48 (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

<--Ok first, I still think it's a POV bias by not including it. It's a common term, and you both are biased against what the public is calling it. Second, it doesn't have one name. It was also known as Tropical Depression Eighteen, Tropical Storm Sandy, and Post-Tropical Cyclone Sandy. Those are all official names for the storm from the National Hurricane Center. As it happens, only Hurricane and Superstorm Sany became the common terms. Lastly, if you're worried about science and confusion, why can't we say "also I officially known as Superstorm Sandy"? There is precedent. See Cyclone Bawbag. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Before this gets lame, I never said that the name Superstorm was an official term for a hurricane. However, Superstorm has been used for storms other than Sandy, such as the 1993 Storm of the Century, so this is not something new. In fact, in the thesis of the article it says "The Storm of the Century, also known as the '93 Superstorm, or the (Great) Blizzard of 1993, " YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I've just started a RfC below if any of you are interested. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) ^{[Merry Christmas!]} 17:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Superstorm Sandy in the lead section?

Should "Superstorm Sandy" be included in the lead section? (e.g. Hurricane Sandy, also unofficially known as Superstorm Sandy, <refs go here>) The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) ^{[Merry Christmas!]} 17:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

If this is to happen, then someone should share multiple published media sources here which would back the addition of this content. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Straw poll

• Option A - No mention of "Superstorm" anywhere in the article
• Option B - Mention of "Superstorm" in a body section, but not in the lede paragraph
• Option C - Mention of "Superstorm" in a body section and un-bolded in a non-lede sentence in the introduction
• Option D - Mention of "Superstorm" in a body section and as a bold-faced "also known as" in the lede
• Option E - Something else?

This is not a vote, just a reference point to see where we stand. Who knows - maybe we're closer to compromise than we think. Please add longer comments to the threaded discussion section below.

1. Preferably B, but I'm ok with C as a compromise. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 04:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
2. Although I used to prefer A as the best option, B sounds the best to me. United States Man (talk) 05:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
3. D. It's clear from media coverage that "Superstorm Sandy" is a commonly used term for the storm. A Google news search, for instance, turns up 108,000 results] from Superstorm Sandy compared to 179,000 for Hurricane Sandy. Hot Stop (Talk) 05:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
4. D, but, as I said many times, have it say "also unofficially known as". --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
5. D. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 05:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
6. Probably D, but C is still OK (basically, as long as it's mentioned in the lede). The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) ^{[Merry Christmas!]} 05:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
7. C - compromise between those who don't want the name at all and those who want it bolded. Its position in the lead already grants it a high standard, well, at least higher than the rest of the text not included in the lead. Also the suggestion that I said myself. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 21:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
8. D. My opinion has pretty much already been relayed by others in the poll above and the other discussion section. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
9. Somewhere between C and D. Will be fine with either. Mitch32^{(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting)} 00:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
10. C Mentioning it in the lede is enough. No need to bold it. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
11. Agreed, C. Longer comments below. --Alan W (talk) 06:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
12. D This is normally how we deal with alternate names in wikipedia articles. I'm quite sure TWC used this name first and as an alternative to Frankenstorm. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
13. B, eventually C - WP is not a tabloid. Even if the media uses sensationalistic titles we should not; but we may report their use - Nabla (talk) 11:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
14. B, C, D or anything (i.e. E) as long as we write, "also referred by some as......" or something like that. --Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 15:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
15. D - although I would say "unofficially known". The name has become common enough in the media and other sources that it should be included in the lead. Inks.LWC (talk) 09:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Can we put "unofficially" after "also known"? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Or even "...also known in the media as..."? The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) ^{[Merry Christmas!]} 17:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the Red Cross the media. I think just unofficially works. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that true. "...also known unofficially as..." sounds good. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) ^{[Merry Christmas!]} 17:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

So, I guess I got my answer - We're not going to wait to discuss this, we're just going to keep adding and removing it until someone gets tired? Okay, then. Let's do that. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 19:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on the proposed wording? The unofficial nature of the alt name is emphasized early on. Also note Yellow Evan's comment above about the 1993 Superstorm. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts are unchanged, because I have seen not one single reason to change them: It should not be in the lede under any circumstances. If it must be included, it should be in a properly sourced "media coverage" section. It is not any kind of name for the storm, no matter what anyone here says. I think it would be nice if just once we could create an article on a scientific event that wasn't an amateurish embarrassment to Wikipedia's credibility. Those are my thoughts. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 21:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

ALT PROPOSAL Here is an alternative that avoids waffling legalese in the opening sentence, "Hurricane Sandy (nicknamed 'Superstorm Sandy') was ...."; The fact that it was nicknamed thus is is so uncontroversial that in my view, including RSs in the lead would be WP:CLUTTER. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It also had a dozen other nicknames. Putting one in is a magnet for more (and there's no real metric for rejecting one but not another). Putting it in its own section and requiring proper sources is the only way to keep the lede professional. It doesn't take any waffling legalese to simply leave it out. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number}

All good points, I agree. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Anything in the lead needs to be explained in greater detail, with sources, later in the article anyway. I want to see a reliable source that says it was a nickname, or whatever, not just an example of usage. That's not a source. HiLo48 (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

First hit - [2]. I still think it saying "unofficially known as..." works better than nickname, since Kafziel is right, there are several nicknames. None of the alternative names are as well-known as "Superstorm" though. As I said earlier, there are several official and unofficial names (official ones being TD 18, TS/H Sandy, Post-Tropical Cyclone Sandy, unofficial ones varying but most popularly "Superstorm Sandy"). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you source your claim that "None of the alternative names are as well-known as "Superstorm" though"? HiLo48 (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

And really, why are you bothering? HiLo48 (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not my job to prove something that is not. Sandy is also unofficially known as a Superstorm, and that source backs it up. I am bothering because I strongly feel that such a widely used name should be mentioned in the lede. Why are you bothering? :) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Suerpstorm sandy gets 140 million results while Frankenstorm gets several million and extratropical storm sandy gets 250K. So, Superstorm Sandy is the most common unofficial name. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the analysis, just as I had suspected. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

WHY ARE WE WASTING OUR TIME HERE?

There has been extensive discussion above. No new points are likely to arise now. Some of us will never be convinced that silly media hype should appear in this article. I will stop posting now, because there is nothing new. But I will be watching. HiLo48 (talk) 00:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Please remain WP:CIVIL. Telling others to stop wasting their time is a good way to waste your time. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

ONE of the reasons "Superstorm Sandy" is entirely appropriate, besides its widespread usage, is that the storm was no longer a hurricane when it hit the US mainland--JimWae (talk) 00:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Totally agreed. Given HiLo48 won't be writing anything new, I'm going to revert back to the previous wording of "also unofficially known as". --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Can we wait until the RFC is closed until we add it back in, while HiLo48 has stated they will not be chipping in with any more comments, it is obvious that this is a disputed topic and we should wait until an admin who isnt involved closes the RFC before putting it in.Jason Rees (talk) 01:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any opinions on the dispute at hand? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is that this is getting into WP:lame territory.Jason Rees (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I have a few opinions. So do several others - they've already stated them above, and they aren't required to come back and restate them for you here. It would be nice if I could step away for a goddamn hour or two to eat dinner or whatever, without you taking it as tacit acceptance of whatever unilateral decision you've decided to make this time. At some point tonight I'll probably go to sleep for a few hours; please don't think that means I've left Wikipedia. I'll be interested in this for as long as it takes. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 02:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

So what is your opposition to the proposal then? Although there may be many nicknames and other such names, thanks to Yellow Evan, it's clear that "Superstorm Sandy" is the most widely used alternative name. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Google results are not the definitive word on anything. Ever. Ever. But, aside from that, as I've already said, I don't care how many results you find for it, it will never be acceptable because the storm has only one name. Superstorm Sandy is not an "alternative name". It is nothing. It's a redirect to send people to the right name. Nobody is saying nicknames don't exist - we're saying they're all media hype and nothing more, and we should be focused on science instead of sensationalism. The essence of your argument seems to be "Yes, we know it's media hype, but we like it there." That's not good enough for me. I'm not going to apologize for wanting to keep the article respectable and scholarly. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 02:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Part of what you said is false. There isn't only one name. The National Hurricane Center officially recognized it as "Tropical Depression Eighteen", "Tropical Storm Sandy", "Hurricane Sandy", and "Post-Tropical Cyclone Sandy". And no one said it was definitive, but it's helpful to see the comparison in how much article names are used. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The National Hurricane Center doesn't name hurricanes. And I don't see you arguing for any of those names to be added to the lede, so I guess you must know that. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 03:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but none of those names are used as much as "Superstorm Sandy" :P --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, not on Google, anyway. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 03:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Or Bing :) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Just voicing my opinion on the whole subject matter here (not a response). What I would do, is somewhere suitable in the lead, say something like - "While known officially as a post-tropical cyclone at landfall, various media outlets and press releases from government agencies unoffically named the system 'Superstorm Sandy,'" and then maybe add it in with sources and some additional info in an appropriate media coverage section, later in the article. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 02:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

No, at least not in the thesis. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

'Course not. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 02:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Look at the table of contents: The section is already there. I wrote it earlier today. I don't have a problem with talking about the media's names for it, just not in the first sentence and not in bold face. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 02:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

AFAIK other names for a topic/topics general go in the first sentence throughout WP. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but this doesn't have any other names. It is Hurricane Sandy, and everything else is a bunch of media nonsense. The World Meteorological Organization names hurricanes. Nobody else. If there is more than one actual name for something, then, yes, we sometimes include it. But we do not include every made-up nickname anyone ever called it. Not in the lede, anyway. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 03:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Why is this even controversial? Is it really that bad to mention a very widely known nickname for the storm in the lead? I mean seriously, everyone I know refers to it as "Superstorm Sandy". Why not include it in the lead like TheAustinMan's example or something like "Hurricane Sandy (also known as Superstorm Sandy) was a hurricane that devastated portions of the Caribbean and the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern United States..."--12george1 (talk) 03:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, George, there's a whole lot of discussion on this page, and if you'd like to know why it's controversial you're welcome to read it. That's why we keep them: So we don't have to go over it from the beginning every time someone new walks in. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 03:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Eh, doesn't answer my question. I mean what is so outrageous about including the words "Superstorm Sandy" in the lead? In my opinion, this is becoming one of these.--12george1 (talk) 03:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

So don't waste your time with it. Nobody's making you participate. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 03:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I feel it would be more lame for superstorm to not be mentioned than the debate itself, hence why I am arguing over this. I don't understand why this is even controversial? What makes the named "Superstorm" "unscientific media nonsense" when the NWS is using it and the fact the super storm, in general, is to describe very intense non-tropical storms (like the 2011 Bering Sea superstorm and the 1993 storm of the century). I think GC said is the best, but I am fine with Hink's idea as well and to some extend, TAM's. And even if it is "unscientific media nonsense", we still need to maintain a neutral point of view and respect the media. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Just the American media? Has the media in other country ever gone off the scientific track so far? (I know I said I wouldn't comment any more, but these are questions.) HiLo48 (talk) 04:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

When I said "respect the media", I meant all media, not just the US media. YE ^{PacificHurricane} 04:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you missed my point. The only storms being mentioned here that have been given "sensational" names by the media have been American ones, and it's the American media that's done it. I personally have less respect for a media sector that feels the need to beat up stories that are already as dramatic as this one. HiLo48 (talk) 05:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we should clear something up here: This is not some crazy crusade by a bunch of science nuts to change the article and oppress Superstorm lovers everywhere. It's nice that everyone is taking a sudden interest in the article, but the fact is that the words "Superstorm Sandy" have spent almost no time at all in the lede since the article was written back in October. The normal state of the article, for almost all of this time, has been to not have it. What started this whole discussion was a removal of it from a later paragraph[3]. Having it in the lede wasn't even on the table. So, no, it's not "lame" to keep it out of the first sentence. It's academic, and this is an encyclopedia. This has nothing to do with NPOV, and there is no policy anywhere that says we have to "respect the media", whatever that means. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 04:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Everyone keeps saying that it should be in the lede but I haven't seen anyone state why it is not okay for it to not be included in the lede and have a paragraph below. Why is it so important that this nonsense has to be in the lede? As Kafziel said, this is an encyclopedia with official scientific names. And please tell me exactly what a superstorm is. There is no such thing as a superstorm. It is only a nickname with no scientifical ties to any weather system in the world. It had many nicknames and including one over the others (even if that one is used more) is not how wikipedia runs. I would be more than happy to agree on the paragraph that Kafziel wrote. United States Man (talk) 04:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

USM, it has scientific ties. As TAM said, the NWS used it. Either way, you are wrong on all points, sorry. The main nickname that is used is Superstorm Sandy as confirmed earlier, so I think it is appropriate to be mentioned in the lead. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Consensus can change on Wikipedia. It is certainty encyclopedic to mention in the lead what the media called it. It does have to something to do with NPOV, in particular WP:UNDUE by mentioning what both scientists and the media call it. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Um, if anything, UNDUE helps our case, not yours: Putting an unscientific nickname from the press in bold face in the first sentence gives undue weight to a media fabrication. We are not obligated to do that. Just because something exists does not mean it must be included. We're not WikiNews; we don't have to parrot everything the media says. This isn't my first day at Wikipedia - I've been here for eight years, and you're not going to show me a policy I haven't seen, so let's just talk like adults instead of linking to a bunch of stuff.

Yes, consensus can change. It hasn't yet, though. That's why we're here discussing it. Thus far, consensus has been to keep it out; it's on you to show that consensus has changed. So far, I haven't seen anything except "I like it" and "Lots of people call it that". Doesn't persuade me. Or Hilo. Or United States Man. Or any number of other editors who have discussed this over and over in previous discussions. Linking to NPOV isn't going to help, because it's not my point of view that Superstorm Sandy is not its name; Superstorm Sandy is not its name. That's a fact, not a point of view. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 04:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

This POV argument almost makes me want to laugh. When one person said it was POV not to include it, it really made it look like they were endorsing their POV to put it in. Arguing over that makes this dicussion go nowhere. United States Man (talk) 05:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, the offical name (which there were three, but we use the most common) is also boded in the first sentence, so yes, we are using their offical name. FTR, by my count, six people have agreed to having it in the first sentence whereas three people have not. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 05:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I stick with my opinion - put something about it suitable in an appropriate position in the lead, and then source it in the body-prose. Take the April 25–28, 2011 tornado outbreak, for example. At one point, it had the words, "...popularly known as the 2011 Super Outbreak..." in the thesis. Now, not so. Like Sandy, that name was used by the NWS. With Sandy, we see the same thing with "Superstorm." I don't know how we got to trying to put it in the thesis. I believe all what TAWX, the original poster, wanted, was a mention in the lead, and like usual, a source in the body prose. Plain and simple. Take my example. In the lede, say, "While known officially as a post-tropical cyclone at landfall, various media outlets and press releases from government agencies unoffically named the system 'Superstorm Sandy,'" and then source it later, in the body. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 04:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

But why in the lede? Why not in a separate section on the page? United States Man (talk) 04:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, topics that have a section in a body of an article more or less get included on the lead throughout Wikipedia. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. We do not typically include nicknames of storms in introductory sentences. Even Hurricanehink admits that adding it here would be an exception to the rule.[4] Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 04:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, most WPTC articles don't have sections on media coverage, so either way it is an exception to the rule. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 05:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

And now you see why we have to talk about it, instead of trying to hurl policies at each other. We're working on consensus because there is no governing policy for this. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 05:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the straw poll, as long as it's in the lede, I think it should be fine. It's such a widely-used term that readers may get confused if it's not mentioned in the lede. Do you think that the majority of readers are coming for "scientific" information? No, most of them are probably looking for the effects, damage, response, etc., as hinted by this article's feedback. Let's do it for the readers. Just my 2¢... The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) ^{[Merry Christmas!]} 06:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your take on the intent of the readers, but they can search for Superstorm Sandy and get here just fine. I'm not talking about deleting the redirect. Nobody is going to get to Hurricane Sandy and think they're in the wrong place, and it wouldn't hurt them to learn that "Superstorm" is not the right name. That said, I agree that C seems like a reasonable compromise. If we can ever get anyone else to that point... Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 06:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) ^{[Merry Christmas!]} 06:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

For whatever my opinion is worth (I've contributed here only in a very minor way), Option "C" seems right to me. Articles on hurricanes should, I agree, be primarily scientific in character. But there is no rule against including popular reactions to a hurricane somewhere in the article; and the lead section should summarize all or most of what follows (and there's no rule that prohibits including a little about any subtopic covered). "Superstorm Sandy" definitely shouldn't be in bold or in the first sentence. But somewhere later in the lead, in a context making it clear that this is a media-coined name, I think it's acceptable. --Alan W (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Big deal in a teacup since you (now) ask me. Ask yourselves what people need in the lede, and why. Common sense says it is perfectly reasonable and accordingly encyclopedic to mention the "Superstorm Sandy" appellation in the lede as well as where appropriate if anywhere in the body, because even some 12000 km away I got tired of hearing the expression. Unbolded might be best, but I would not go to war to forbid option D. And yes, definitely mention that the name is informal and unofficial. And BTW, as it stands the lede is waaay too long and most of its content should be in the body only. JonRichfield (talk) 13:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Summary

Unless I'm mistaken, the summary of the straw poll and the discussion above indicates that "Superstorm Sandy" should appear somewhere in the lede, and that the primary debate is whether it should be in the opening sentence or not. As a result of that, I'm going to add "Superstorm Sandy" late in the first paragraph, and we can discuss further whether it should be moved earlier in the first paragraph or not. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

We DON'T fucking vote here. I didn't participate in this stupid discussion because of that. It was also unbelievably clumsily constructed. This has been an appalling process with an even worse conclusion! We now have junk tabloid language in the lead of a very important article. Pathetic! HiLo48 (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Please remain civil, there is no need for that language. It wasn't a vote, it was a discussion, and most people agreed the commonly used term, used by Red Cross and National Weather Service, should be somewhere in the lede. It is not junk tabloid language. Even FEMA has used it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Not a vote, eh? Why is it called a fucking poll? Words are all we have here, and poll means vote, and that's what the topic was called. And try answering ALL my points. HiLo48 (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

What is consensus, but an agreement by the majority of people? I don't think it was "unbelievably clumsily constructed", and the discussion went on for far too long, with too many people agreeing that "Superstorm" should go somewhere in the lede. It's hardly pathetic when Red Cross, NWS, and FEMA use the term. I don't know what else I'm supposed to respond to, but I think it's time we move on from the huge discussion. It's gotten quite lame (and that isn't meant to be uncivil, just pointing to the Wiki listing for lame discussions). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I've struck out the naughty word that offended you so much. (Although I mainly did it because I made a long term promise to pacify the shallow thinking conservatives here.) Offended you so much more than the poor wording, poor logic, and appalling processes used here. They are what do far more damage to Wikipedia than naughty words, complaints about which tend to be the defence of the poor logicians here. For example, I criticised the process, and you responded with an argument from within the process for which I obviously have no respect. I don't care who used the term "Superstorm Sandy". It's still junk tabloid language. (And my spell checker still objects to "Superstorm".) And polling is NOT consensus. Consensus is achieved through quality discussion, where people pay attention to and logically respond to points made by others. What happened here was a vote. And there's a lot of fans of junk tabloid language attracted to articles like this. There's some language we all use in daily conversation that should never appear in a quality encyclopaedia. And saying it's been discussed so much so we'll add this garbage is not very convincing. It's a sad day for Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It was your tone that offended me, actually. I don't mind the word, and fuck yea it's OK to use every once in a while. I think the discussion has been well-thought out and written, quite the opposite of appalling. I believe you are the only one being illogical, due to the many people who agree with the inclusion of the alternate name, and not to mention the variety of reasons I and others have given why it's an acceptable name to include. I think you are being a bit unfair with statements like "I don't care who used the term "Superstorm Sandy"". It is indeed a sad day when one person cannot move beyond including a commonly used term for the worst weather disaster areas to hit my state. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Not arguing with the main points of this discussion, but I do think that the sentence you added, Hurricanehink, is a little awkward and could use some polishing. So I'm going to do that. If anyone thinks I've changed the meaning, it can always be edited further. Sorry, it's the old editor and English teacher coming out in me. :-) And maybe a little more polish will at least partly address your objections, HiLo48. --Alan W (talk) 04:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I know counting votes is not the popular way of chosing, but as I think shouting is a worse way... I'll count the votes above as I see them. All (13 out of 13) accept a mention in the body of the article (B/C/D) {note that one editor prefers A, but also accept B}; so it surely goes into the article. 10 want/accept mention t the lead (C/D) 5 do not want, or accept no, mention in the lead (A/B) (with two overlapping votes B/C, including mine); so it clearly goes in the lead. 8 do not want it bolded or accept not bolding (A/B/C), 7 want, or accept, it bold (D); it is borderline, and hardly consensus either way, but it points no not bolding the lead mention. I will accordingly and boldly un-bold it. A couple notes, and a though: This results in chosing "C" which may seem counter-intuitive as it has less votes than B or D, nevertheless, the above reading of the opinions seem to point to C as a acceptable middle ground (to me it sure is, I prefer B, then C); I like looking into voting systems, may be interesting to try some of them for this case... - Nabla (talk) 10:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you read this: Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion? Your votecounting goes against everything that guideline stands for. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Most likely I have read it back in 2006. And quite a few times since. And I was perfectly aware of it (thus the "I know counting votes is not the popular way" - have you read that?) Note that a poll is also a structured way of discussion, a poll is not to be completely ignored. That guideline even says so at the very to: "When polls are used, they should ordinarily be considered a means to help in determining consensus" And this poll is even a reasonably good example of that. Each editor wrote down their vote and a summary of their reason why, so that anyone can have a general idea in a quick glance - thyat helps discussion. Then there is also a general discussion for more indepth analysis. The poll have not stopped that, it was no substitute for discussion, it helped. Actually I did not counted correctly... if had I used more of the discussion I would include HiLo48's opinion as a kind-of-vote too, reinforcing my summary, but I tryed to avoid much subjective choices, and anyway including or not would not change the conclusion much. I think all arguments are sane and strong... so... How do you alternatively propose to assess the consensus? - Nabla (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Give a lot more weight to those arguments which reach a conclusion different from your own opinion. It's very difficult to objectively evaluate conflicting arguments when you are directly involved yourself. HiLo48 (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand. If everybody gave a lot more weight to other's opinions then we would "go around" and, in close cases like this one, we would end up defending the opposing opinion. But nevermind that. How do you access consensus? How do you assess consensus, if users do not state their opinions? Why is stating opinions in a structured way (e.g., polling, voting) detrimental? It would be if it stopped discussion, but it did not (except for yourself - what harm would have been done to your point if you added a short "A, WP is not a tabloid" at the top?). I'd say it helped any uninvolved party to quickly assess the state of the discussion. If most editors have a consensus to do 'this', how is it different from a poll & discussion, with a large majority of votes for 'this'? If after discussion, with good arguments from both sides, then editors are still more or less divided in two clear cut position (include or not; bold, not-bold) how do you propose to move on? A shouting contest? A revert war, last man standing wins? Wait for a "uninvolved user" (is there such a thing?) to come and close a discussion? What are we? Children, that can not solve their problems, we need daddy/teacher to come here and tell us what to do? - Nabla (talk) 10:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Whew, perhaps this superstorm in a teacup has passed. My own conservative, elitist view is, this vulgar nomenclatorial innovation is part of the worldwide conspiracy of progressive relaxation of linguistic standards and ought to be banished to a paragraph about press coverage if not exterminated. And if that's a <insert favorite dirty word>ing tabloid way to look at it, tough toenails. However, I hope I'm too late to influence the course of that discussion, because we've got bigger issues to cover. Namely . . . .

Jim.henderson (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that this controversy makes sense in a way, but is missing the forest for the trees; given that "Superstorm Sandy" is inarguably the most popular unofficial alternate name for the storm, that should obviously be there. People don't like the fact that "superstorm" isn't scientific? Fine -- go find a source complaining that it should *only* be referred to as "Hurricane Sandy" and definitely not "Superstorm Sandy", and then you can add language to the article explaining what the source says about that. But, in the mean time, we should focus on distinguishing characteristics; there is simply no way that "this is the eighteenth named storm of the year" deserves to be a more prominent fact than "this is that storm that is popularly know as Superstorm Sandy" (possibly modified by "to the chagrin of many scientists", with a source) in the lede. It's a trivial fact, and made more comically trivial in contrast to "the largest Atlantic hurricane on record" (not sure why you need the level of detail elaborating on that; that seems more like article stuff than lede stuff) or "the second-costliest Atlantic hurricane, behind only Hurricane Katrina" or "253 people were killed". Those are all important facts which obviously belong in a lead, because they make it clear why *this* storm is noteworthy. Saying it's the 18th named storm so prominently makes it sound less notable, since half those storms don't even warrant their own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.74.57.100 (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC) As this discussions seems to have ended with consensus that it should be in the lead, and the text currently IS in the lead, I'm going to remove the RfC template so that it's not listed on the project pages as still ongoing. Inks.LWC (talk) 13:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Clean up

I've done some clean up on the article, removing things like "____ people are still without power", eliminated unnecessary references, and condensed things where I could. I broke it up to edit by section (both to make it easier on myself and in case someone wanted to undo a particular change I made), but the full extent of my clean up is here. There's still probably more that can be eliminated and condensed, but this was the stuff that caught my eye for now. Inks.LWC (talk) 10:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Nickname

I just got into an argument with a freind who watched the movie "The Day After Tomorrow", where a "superstorm" changes the earth's climate. She was trying to convince me that Sandy was one of these...I was a bit taken aback when she referred me to this errant Wikipedia article. I took the liberty to make it clear that the term "Superstorm" is a nickname, and not some new class of super-hurricane...Thank you. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Um, there's weeks' worth of discussion about this, just above. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 21:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I read it. My edit was in line with the discussion and consensus. I don't think either side will object. Just letting everyone know what I did. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Your edits removed the phrase about the storm's "unusual composition". I've restored that. It is not "original research". There are media sources cited later that point out that in the Northeast U.S., the hurricane "collided" with Arctic air to form what they called a "superstorm". This doesn't have to be meteorologically sound. We are just reporting the fact, supported by citations later in the article (the lead section just sums it up), that some news media (and, when speaking informally, government agencies) felt justified in calling Sandy a superstorm, and why they felt that way (which includes what they thought of as the storm's "unusual composition"). I agree about "nickname", indicating that the name is not scientifically sanctioned. --Alan W (talk) 05:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, "unusual composition" isn't exactly accurate, as it wasn't he composition of the hurricane that was unusual, but Sandy's merge with the frontal system. Considering that this is what the sources discuss, I have changed the lead slightly to reflect this. Inks.LWC (talk) 10:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

That certainly is more precise and removes any doubt as to what "unusual composition" might mean. (I took it to mean something like what you wrote, but now that I see the explanation of your change, Inks.LWC, I see how not everyone would take it that way.) It works for me, and hopefully everyone will be satisfied with this edit. (Though of course, as the old expression goes, no one can please everyone all the time.) --Alan W (talk) 03:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

This article was scheduled to be semi-protected until February 1 (2 days from now). But knowing how notable this article is, should the semi-protection be changed to permanent due to vandalism? Or would it be safe to lift it, assuming not much vandalism would go on after February 1? Rye998 (talk) 12:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Since semi-protection "should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred" (WP:SEMI), I think we should let the semi-protection expire, watch for vandalism, and semi-protect again if necessary. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 16:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems ok. If there isn't much vandalism that goes on after it's unprotected, it might be fine left that way. In the event the article is suddenly vandalized significantly as soon as the semi-protection is lifted, by then we could consider a perma-lock, like with Katrina. Rye998 (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

We can always turn on pending changes if need be. But I think there are enough editors here to make sure vandalism doesn't become a problem. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 20:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

NJ Photo caption

I have changed this photo caption several times as have others. The picture of damage is NOT of Long Beach island. The picture is of Mantoloking, which is On the Barnegat Peninsula, and NOT Long Beach Island. So whoever keeps switching it back, please stop. If you are not convinced go to the aerial images of Sandy damage on NOAA and scan the coast for yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.217.65 (talk) 10:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

TCR released

For those who haven't seen this already, the National Hurricane Center has released its Tropical Cyclone Report on Sandy. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed improvements

Below I have a few proposals that might make this article cleaner and better organized.

• Create a new section called Aftermath.
• In the aftermath section would go the various subsections like relief efforts, media involvement, political impact, relation to global warming etc...
• The meteorological history section should include ONLY the meteorological history of the storm.
• Move Records and Global Warming effect from Meteorological history of Hurricane Sandy to the Aftermath section.
• Move Predictions from Meteorological history of Hurricane Sandy to the Preparations section.

This layout would cut down on the misplaced subsections and it would organize those subsections into one coherent section; similar to the articles on Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Ike. Tell me what y'all think. Lemphilipps 07:53, 08 February, 2013 (UTC)

With respect to the climatological context in which the meteorological event developed (the "relation to global warming" subsection) it is where it is via a strong prior consensus . NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Global warming has to do with climatology, but the climatology impacted the meteorology of the storm, so it should stay in the Met history page. As for predictions, they're meteorological predictions... that is part of the meteorological history, as are the records. Also, the relation to global warming isn't really aftermath; if anything, its effects were before and during the storm. Inks.LWC (talk) 11:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not doubting that GW played a role in affecting Hurricane Sandy; I would note, however, that most of the meteorological history pages on wikipedia have a de-facto standard of being a synopsis of the meteorological events that happened during the lifespan of the hurricane, hence meteorological history. They are not intended to discuss the predictions or speculations as to why certain events happened, only to give observations as to what the hurricane actually did, see Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina for an example, if you get my drift. If it was decided that a global warming section should be put in the meteorological history section, and the community is really strongly for it, then I respect that consensus and I will not attempt to edit it.

Other than that, I would like to know what you think about adding an Aftermath section to provide a space for further info on the damages, media/political fallout, and recovery; rather than having a clutter of subsections in the body of the article. Again, this is a common format for articles about damaging and history-making tropical cyclones. Lemphilipps 19:05, 08 February, 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I am doing this so that the article could meet the criteria for a well written article, not for personal preferences or opinion. Lemphilipps 20:10, 08 February, 2013 (UTC)

RE paragraph 1, that is indeed what happened. In this thread I provided a link to the archived discussion that produced this consensus.

RE paragraph 2, sounds good

RE paragraph 3, thanks for your efforts

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Reading through the linked discussion, I dispute the assertion that Global Warming has a "strong consensus" about being in the Meteorological history section. Most of those comments seem to be talking about whether it would be correct or not to punt off that section to another article, and only two of those comments explicitly give reasons why the GW section should be a part of the Met history. Many comments in the archived discussion note that they have no preference whether the GW section is a subsection or its own section. As such, the most you can really surmise from that discussion is that there is a consensus to keep a mention of global warming somewhere in the article. I also note that Aftermath is one of the standard sections described in WP:WPTC/S, and it is there to hold exactly this sort of analysis-based sections. I support Lemphilipps's suggestions. (I should note that I am a member of WP:WPTC.) Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Uh.... maybe you should read it again? None of the opening proposals in the !vote were to "punt off that section to another article". Among the !votes, there were about 29 to keep it under the Level 1 heading for Met History with or without a separate level 2 heading like we have now. There were 3 to punt it off to another section in this article; About 11 said it should have not mention in this article - and not one of those 11 suggested it should be in a different one. This is a "strong consensus" to keep it under the Level 1 Met History heading.... we could go on to discuss the analysis for having a separate level 2 heading under Met History but I'll stop now, since the thesis of your comment (that most were about punting to a different article) is incorrect. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

You can arrive at that conclusion if you only concentrate on the bolded "Proposal A" part of the comments. But if you read the content of the comments themselves, you arrive at a different conclusion. Here are a few comments from that discussion:

• Proposal B -If global warming wasn't involved, that should be noted. The topic is getting coverage [7], [8], [9] and should be covered.Smallman12q (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
• Proposal A/B We don't prevent our readers to get full information. This issue is an inseparable part of the Sandy discussion. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
• Proposal A or B Clearly it cannot be expunged or ignored. The sources exist. Equally, it should not be ghettoised and may come up again in any place in the text where the sources providing context make the link. I wholeheartedly agree that demanding 'balance' between mainstream science and extremist views is nonsense and contravenes WP:NPOV policy, specifically WP:FRINGE. Just because this event included damage in the USA where such fringe views may have greater prominence than elsewhere does not alter WP's worldwide view of such matters. --Nigelj (talk) 12:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
• Proposal A/B No matter what the personal beliefs of many editors here are about global warning, there has been discussion on it in reliable sources. That discussion must be included. It is not necessary for the article to say that "Hurricane Sandy was caused by global warning", but it is necessary for the article to say that some people think the hurricane was caused by global warning. The article should mention something about dissent; however, I feel that global warming is the majority view in this case. Ryan Vesey 18:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Now how many of those mention why the global warming discussion should be specifically in the meteorological history section? None of them. Which is my main point: The discussion on where to put the GW section was muddled and overwhelmed by the discussion on whether to even have a GW section. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

It was agreed upon to have the GW section in the article a few months ago (link here). TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Titoxd, when you say " Now how many of those mention why the global warming discussion should be specifically in the meteorological history section? None of them." that is false and I know that because I wrote the argument on this point that was cited by the closing editor.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstood what I wrote. In the first comment I made in this thread, I wrote, "only two of those comments explicitly give reasons why the GW section should be a part of the Met history." In my last comment, I asked how many of the comments I cited gave reasons why Global warming should be part of the Met history. None of them did. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The numbers

Would somebody familiar with all the latest sources please reconcile the numbers? From the latest edits, I see that we now say that there are "72 direct deaths" in the United States. Yet the numbers then given for the states do not add up: "48 in New York, 12 in New Jersey, 5 in Connecticut, 2 in both Pennsylvania and Virginia, and 1 in New Hampshire, West Virginia and Maryland, and 2 off the North Carolina coast." 48 + 12 + 5 + 2 + 1 + 2 = 70. Where do the other 2 "direct deaths" come from? The table then has to be reconciled with this as well. That still shows "72" direct deaths and "87" indirect, not "90" indirect deaths as given for the United States elsewhere in the article. --Alan W (talk) 05:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the first part adds up. There were 2 in both PA and VA. That is, two each, not a total of two between them. So you're missing a "2" in your addition. It should be 48 + 12 + 5 + 2 + 2 + 1 + 2 = 72. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 07:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

From Page 14 of the TCR (linked above): "Two offshore deaths occurred about 90 n mi southeast of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, when the H.M.S. Bounty sank—14 other people were rescued by the Coast Guard."Jason Rees (talk) 14:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Those are included in the count. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 14:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, I found the right table, also in TCR, p. 120, table 9. There is still one inconsistency (or was, as I just fixed it), and that is resolved by removing the two off the North Carolina coast. North Carolina is not in table 9, and if you look at table 8, that explains it, as they do not enter into the U.S. totals but were considered to have been in the "Atlantic Ocean". --Alan W (talk) 03:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Now I re-added North Carolina with further explanation. Also I added Puerto Rico to the Impact table; otherwise, those numbers don't add up. (The NOAA does not include Puerto Rico in the U.S. totals, limiting those to the states.) --Alan W (talk) 03:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Damage total

So this doesn't become an edit war (more than it already is), I think we should have a discussion about the damage total here (which would also influence List of costliest Atlantic hurricanes). We have two alternatives to consider for the US:

• NCDC/NYT - $$71.4 billion [5] - "The New Jersey State Governor estimated property damage at 29.4 billion dollars for the State." No exact mention of New York damage in NCDC, but we have an estimate from Cuomo - "Mr. Cuomo said the recent storm would cost New York State nearly $42 billion".
• NHC - $50 billion - "Preliminary estimates compiled from a variety of sources suggest that Sandy was responsible for at least 50 billion dollars in damage in the United States. This figure is highly uncertain and it will probably take several more months before a more accurate total is obtained."

IMO, we should go with the NHC for now. It sounds like what happened with Katrina, when NCDC ironically had a higher total for a while, but the NHC used a slightly lower total in all of its recordkeeping. The NCDC doesn't currently list a total (it's incomplete and won't be announced until later this year). NCDC admits on their own page that Sandy's damage total is incomplete, so I don't think we should be avoiding using the TCR just so we can use a higher, unofficial total. Just my opinion, but I thought I should bring it up here. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Just with fatalities, sometimes the National Hurricane Center is behind. Even if the National Climatic Data Center's total is incomplete that would mean it's higher than already being given, in which case they're still closer to the exact total than the NHC. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 17:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

But NCDC admits their total is incomplete, and NCDC doesn't list the total, versus the NHC doing a total. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Blizzards, again

I've brought this up before, and I'm still not comfortable with having the "Blizzards in the United States" navbox on this page. I've investigated further, and now I feel justified in removing it. According to WP:NAVBOX#Navigation_templates, "every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional."

There is no snowfall in this article that is covered in an article on a "blizzard", which would then be included as a link in the navbox. While I am no meteorological expert, I strongly suspect that no snowfall that occurred as part of Hurricane Sandy could be correctly categorized as a true blizzard. If it can be, then someone should create an article on it, at least a stub, and link to it in the navbox. Or else, a section here on the blizzard portion of Sandy should justify its being categorized as a blizzard, and then a link to Hurricane Sandy could be included in the navbox. That done, we would be justified in including the navbox here. --Alan W (talk) 04:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, now I have been arguing with myself over this. :-) It looks like we may be justified in including the navbox and category, after all (I have just consulted the TCR), but only after a bit more is at least added to the article to justify it, and then this article is added to the blizzards navbox. Since I seem to be the one most bothered by this, I will take on this work myself. --Alan W (talk) 04:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. In the navbox, I have included only October 29. If anyone can come up with evidence that the blizzard or blizzards continued into the 30th or 31st (i.e., the high winds, not just the snow accumulation), then of course this can be changed. --Alan W (talk) 05:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Changed to October 29–30. --Alan W (talk) 06:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Too big

The article is far over the sizes suggested in WP:SPLIT and half is about the United States. That's the half that's worthy of a whole article. I know some people think this large and important country gets attention in Wikipedia out of proportion to its actual importance in the world, but in this case I think it's merited, as the hurricane killed, injured and displaced more people and broke more things here than anywhere else. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Some of it has already been split off i believe.Jason Rees (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Much of it was split off, but it seems as if people have added a lot back into this article. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The easiest way to cut down is to cut down where we already have sub-articles, namely the met. history (global warming), New York, New Jersey, and Maryland/Wash DC. If we need another sub-article, we should do so for a state, not for the entire United States. There was no Effects of Hurricane Katrina in the United States, and nor should there be here, IMO. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose splitting out the global warming section, because it describes part of the context under which every aspect took place, and because of the prior consensus to include it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I mean cutting it down a bit. It's much longer than the MH. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps there are reasons to shrink further these various little topical and geographical subsections, but each is already less than a twentieth of the article. Even eliminating all of them would not bring it near the recommended size range. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

But collectively they add up significantly. I suppose a good sub-article would only be on the preparations of the article, since that seems to go too much in detail, and the preps aren't too significant in the grand scheme of things. Would a Preparations for Hurricane Sandy in the United States be a viable article? Katrina had one, btw. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the preparations should be added to the various sub-articles and cut down here. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Not the nationwide FEMA efforts. But either way, the preps could and should be cut down. They get rather redundant and don't matter all that much. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

At first it looks like just another drop in the bucket of stuff that ought to be bailed out. However, Americans of a certain age will remember Dirksen's Dictum and be cheered by the thought that enough drops can empty an ocean or at least a teapot. And, unlike the other drip proposals, a US preps article would be more a cupful than a mere drop. Picking the splits on the basis of importance? That's not generally a good criterion for such decisions, but in this case we've got a less exciting matter appearing early in the article, which might be a major factor in readers giving up before they get to the fun parts. So, yes. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It's lonely being the only one who thinks individual hurricanes are important enough to deserve proper treatment under Wikipedia:Summary style whether by droplets or by the bucketful, so it's time to give up. Thanks for your attention. Jim.henderson (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Photo

Sandy was at peak intensity at Advisory 30, while the photo in the infobox implies it was at Advisory 11. Its peak mbar was 940 on the advisory just before New Jersey landfall. In terms of winds than it is the Caribbean, but shouldn't we have the picture at peak barometric pressure? Psoro (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

"Superstorm Sandy"...again

I know this has been discussed on countless occasions at the result of the last discussion was to have the nickname included in the lede, but not at the top, and unbolded. However, seeing as consensus can change, even in the short three months since the discussion, I thought it would be a good idea to bring this issue up...again...considering an edit war may be in progress. Personally, its name is definitely widespread and more scientific than "Winter Storm Nemo", which happens to be bolded in the first sentence of the lede in its article. Thoughts...? TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I have found sources from at least three diffrent countries that use the name "Superstorm" and have also found sources as recent as February 28th calling it a Superstorm (WP:EFFECT) I feel at this time we have to stop kidding ourselves and accept that this is another name that was used for the storm, not the common name but another one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

At first blush this rationale appears to run contrary to WP:NEO, especially this part:

" To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy."

I also think it is "super" mainly compared to US experience, making over-emphasis of this term in a global encyclopedia overly US-centric.

Finally, I think it is "super" mainly compared to US experience so far. See Shifting baseline.

Media usage of the term is worth reporting as a phenomena itself, but is not a reason to enshrine the (fleeting, US-centric) term.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is denying that there are sources, there just aren't any scientific sources. There are also sources for Snowicane, Snoreastercane, Frankenstorm, etc., but we're not putting them all in the lede. It's media hype, and listed in the appropriate section.

Consensus can change as facts change; nothing has changed in this case (and, in point of fact, it has not been even two months since the last discussion ended). But if this was just a gauge to see if I'm still paying attention and still willing to be a giant pain in the ass about this, then, yes. Yes, I am. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 20:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. First of all, Knowledgekid87, only one of the four sources you added is recent, the other three going back to the time of the storm. But that isn't even the main point. NewsAndEventsGuy, I'm an American who was impacted by the storm (in a very minor way, but I know people rendered homeless by this "Superstorm") yet I still agree that the coverage here shouldn't be overly US-centric.

But even that isn't the main point. A hundred years from now, popular usage might still recall "Superstorm Sandy"; but that in itself doesn't make the term scientific. The main emphasis of Wikipedia hurricane coverage is scientific. I think it's OK to include mention of the way the mass media have reported the storm (and even government agencies might sometimes speak in popular terms) but we shouldn't give a nickname "undue weight" (and I think this is worth quoting at length): "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." It's enough that we have a media-coverage section and mention the nickname at the end of the lede; as I see it, that is just the right weight. So, as far as I am concerned, Kafziel, feel free to keep being a giant pain in the ass about this. :-) --Alan W (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Forgive me for coming late to this conversation, but I believe the use of Superstorm as opposed to Hurricane was primarily a fallout from the downgrading of the event to provide insurance coverage in New YOrk and New Jersey. [User: Todd C] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.142.232.5 (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

What you reference here gets it wrong. The storm wasn't downgraded for insurance purposes. By the time it made landfall in new Jersey the storm had completed extratropical transition and so did not meet the technical definition for a hurricane. It was still packing winds equivalent to a category 1 hurricane, but it was no longer a tropical system. The same change in classification would have been made had the storm stayed at sea and not threatened land. Ultimately it was the call of the National Hurricane Center, not the Superintendent of Insurance, to declare whether or not the storm was a hurricane. The only significance in the post is the mentioned potential to change insurance polices, not storm classification. TornadoLGS (talk) 23:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Category 2 or 3?

I looked at the reference for the claim that Sandy intensified into a Category 3 storm before making landfall in Cuba (reference number 22), and that reference says nothing about Sandy intensifying to Category 3. It looks to me like Sandy really only peaked as a Category 2. Is there any other information that can back up the statement that Sandy was even a Category 3? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noseycjr (talk • contribs) 23:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

It was operationally a Category 2 hurricane, meaning that, while the NHC was writing real-time advisories on the storm, it peaked as a Cat 2. However, at the end of each hurricane season, the National Hurricane Center reviews storm data from the ones that formed in a particular season to give it a more accurate intensity if previous information was unavailable or overlooked. Sandy was upgraded to a Category 3 in post-season analysis. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Noseycjr, I have just updated some citations, pointing to the last Tropical Cyclone Report from the National Hurricane Center, which clearly states, as TropicalAnalystwx13 says, that it did peak at Category 3. Good that you pointed this out, though, as it helps to support this assertion with citations from the most reliable source. --Alan W (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Merge?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Sandy wasn't even a tropical cyclone at landfall. The article just highlights how we shouldn't be building so much near the coast. Our own human error shouldn't be so highlighted, and don't even get me started about NHC botching the warnings near landfall. I think we should just merge the article, there's simply too much fluff. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree and think this article should be merged.--12george1 (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Huh? Merge what with what? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 16:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I've condensed this article to 5 sentences. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 16:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Probably merge it to Global warming? That seems to be the most apt place. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that article has been deleted because global warming is a hoax. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 16:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I smell a conspiracy then. Notice Sandy struck just before the election. Maybe Sandy should be merged to the conspiracy article, like weather control? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Get real.Jason Rees (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

If this is to be merged I also think the name should be changed, what kind of name is Sandy? The name sounds like it was WP:OR made up by a spongebob fan. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

These lists were initially created in 1978/1979. Spongebob was not a factor. It wouldn't surprise me if Grease (movie) played a role. That's pure speculation, though. Thegreatdr (talk)

I got a phone call from Chuck Norris and he approves of merging this article. Chuck has lost any thrill of having staring contests with the eye of a hurricane.--12george1 (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

See WP:SOAP and WP:DNFT NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

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.

NJ photo

The picture of damage along the NJ coast is NOT Long Beach Island, it is Mantoloking. People had corrected it numerous times, yet someone inevitably always changed it back- despite the fact that there is nothing citing it as Long Beach Island, and nothing suggesting it is LBI. I will correct it here, and on the NJ effects page. Here is a link to the Birds Eye view map of that same location for verification. The birds eye view is several years old, but the house in the center and right on beach are recognizable, as are some of the homes in the back along the bay. [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.217.65 (talk) 05:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Obviously the same place. Fixed. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 13:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Sandy's Cost

Hurricanehink and Jason Rees, to make my point clearer and avoid an edit war:

Hurricanehink, you changed the estimated damage from Hurricane Sandy from ≥ $75 billion to ≥ $52 billion. But you changed it only in the infobox. The estimated-damage figures appear all over the article. If you make a change like that in the infobox, it should be made everywhere, and all the figures in the table down below and elsewhere have to be reconciled with this change. Otherwise, you're just going to confuse readers.

Jason Rees, yes, the TCR is given as a source. But the TCR as it reads from the link given is the same report the earlier estimate in the range of $75 billion was calculated from. When I say that a source should be given, it should be a new one that justifies the radical change from $75 billion to $52 billion. --Alan W (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The TCR shouldnt be used to back up the 75 Billion as it doesnt give 75 billion, it just gives the US 50B + 2B for Cuba. Some users are taking the 75 billion from the NCDC storm events database and using that as the cost but are not updating the sourcing. This is all discussed here.Jason Rees (talk) 16:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't scroll all the way down to change the other damage total, but IMO, the total should be $50 billion for US plus $2 billion for Cuba. The NCDC totals come from preliminary data, and aren't as reliable as the NHC total. It's similar as to what happened during Katrina, for which we used the NHC total throughout (despite some calls, including from NCDC, of up to $125 billion). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I wasn't in on editing this article from the very beginning (too involved in coping with the effects of the storm itself), so I wasn't sure where the $75 billion came from and mistakenly thought it was tallied up from the TCR. Also, I wasn't aware of the discussion on the List of costliest Atlantic hurricanes talk page. I'll go back and change the $75 billion to $52 billion, and I'll also try to change other figures given later to make them consistent, as far as I can. (The state totals will still probably not add up right; I think it should be understood that they were only early estimates, though. Maybe eventually we can make this all more accurate as we learn more.) --Alan W (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. I edited the transcluded Costliest U.S. Atlantic Hurricanes template as well. I've bumped up the total to ≥ $53 billion. Haiti, the Bahamas—well over a billion just there, so countries outside of the US and Cuba add up to a little more than just a rounding error. Even ≥ $53 billion is very conservative. --Alan W (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The damage total for the US will more than likely be revised upwards in a few years by the NHC, when they get around to releasing a new copy of The Deadliest, Costliest, and Most Intense United States Tropical Cyclones report.Jason Rees (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

A very interesting report. Thanks for pointing it out. I'm sure we're not the only ones looking forward to a revision, so we can see where Sandy fits in. And yes, the figures here will no doubt need many changes in coming months. Rebuilding is only starting to get under way, and who knows how costly it will all be in the end? Everything on Wikipedia is a work in progress, but an article like this one especially so. --Alan W (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit about RED Cross being deleted

http://www.capemaycountyherald.com/article/crime/court+house/91711-red+cross+volunteer+arrested+charged+theft That is the citation that I added. My edit was deleted as a possible BLP problem. I removed the person's name and revised it. It was deleted again and i would like for it to stay. I experienced seeing the Red Cross soliciting for donations on the backs of the disaster. Yes, they did give out blankets and money, meals, help..aid, to evacuated people. After the storm flooded the area, I called them to see if there were any more clean blankets available because I saw them on that concert to raise money., (the blankets)---my own blanket was very dirty since most of my home was underwater and I had no way to wash it because my washer was destroyed as well. I was told by the Red Cross (South Shore Chapter), that they were not able to help anyone. I was told that they were "only giving referrals".
The edit that i am trying to add is a mention and a link to a newspaper article that mentions that this chapter of the Red Cross-(the one in the disaster area), noticed that $75,000 was missing and they had a volunteer arrested for taking the money.
Since I revised my edit to take out the volunteer's name, I think that my edit should be allowed. I did not link to any personal blogs of people who reported not being able to receive any help from the Red Cross, I cited a newspaper. There are also other newspapers and media that reported the theft. Unless someone here gives me a good reason why that edit should not be included, I will be putting it back.(leaving out the accused volunteer's name because the important part is that the Red Cross lost money that was donated to help disaster victims).
TeeVeeed (talk) 06:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see how this alleged theft is relevant enough to an article about the hurricane to merit mention in the article. I agree with the other editors that have removed it that this does not warrant inclusion. VQuakr (talk) 08:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Not only is it non-notable, but it seems from Housewife's comments that this is some sort of personal vendetta against the Red Cross. Hot Stop 02:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that the edit should not be allowed. Thefts from the Red Cross, especially from within, are deplorable; even contemplating the accusation of such a theft is disturbing; but that doesn't justify the inclusion of this material in this particular article, which is supposed to focus on the preparation for Hurricane Sandy, its origin and effects, classification, cleanup efforts in a general way, etc. Alleged malfeasance within a charitable agency is definitely getting way too far off-topic, whether there is an underlying personal vendetta or not. --Alan W (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I thought that personal experience was called, "original research"-not "personal vendetta"-ha ha. Yes, the theft information applies specifically, and exactly where I edited it into the article, because it was balancing the reports of $$ being raised, and "general" overall reports of Rec Cross assistance. No I was not trying to edit in my original research, or opinion, but trying to provide balance to the article-especially for those of us who had direct experience with the event and we know what we know. A reference to a news article reporting a Red Cross volunteer who was charged with stealing money meant for disaster survivors certainly is not a "personal vendetta". And especially since if I recall, I edited-out the accused's name to avoid BLP-problemos.TeeVeeed (talk) 01:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

How in hell does "east coast" deserve capitals?

A little edit war underway over this. The most recent edit without an edit summary! (Despite coming from a fairly experienced editor.) An earlier summary said "East Coast is a place name". Maybe it's a cultural difference, but the east coast of my country is NEVER capitalised. HiLo48 (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The East Coast is a specific area of the US treated as an entity, so it is capitalized. If we just said the east coast of New Jersey it wouldn't be. Very simple, actually. μηδείς (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

You say it's simple. I say that's too simple. Just like the editor who used no Edit summary, you haven't actually given a reason. You're just saying it is because it is. Why does one east coast get capitals when the rest of the world's east coasts don't? HiLo48 (talk) 22:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

IDK, I agree with HiLo48. "east coast" is a description, not a proper noun like "New England". --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

"East Coast" I would think should be capitalized, but "the east coast of the United States" should not. United States Man (talk) 22:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

But why on earth would you even capitalise "East Coast"? HiLo48 (talk) 22:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Because it is treated as a proper noun. How many times does that need to be said. Your opinion is irrelevant in the face of standard usage. United States man is correct that eastern coast of the United States is not normally capitalized, as it is a description, not a proper noun. μηδείς (talk) 23:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, I think the standard should be the following – ( TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 22:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC) )

• When referring to 'The East Coast' by itself, all terms, include 'the', should be capitalized.
  • Only when referring to the east coast per se should you use 'The East Coast'. You should probably default to 'the eastern coast' though, and no caps.
• When leading off with 'eastern' nothing should be capitalized, e.g. the eastern coast of (x), eastern coast of the United States
  • Use whenever referring to the east coast of something; this will probably be the most used form of 'east coast'
• When leading off with just 'east' and then 'of (x)', capitalize, 'east coast', as in East Coast of the United States TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 22:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

"East Coast" is a proper noun; it documents a multi-state region of the United States. Proper nouns are capitalized. If we were talking about a direction (east/south/north/west) it would not be capitalized. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 23:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

(ec) HiLo48, maybe the "east coast" of your country is never capitalized, but does that mean that the east coast of no other country should ever be capitalized? (You don't see me telling you to change "capitalised" to "capitalized". These spellings are matters of local convention. It is a cultural, or at least regional, difference, which should be respected.) We don't dictate the customs of countries. In fact, in the U.S., the East Coast and the West Coast are considered specific regions, and as such the terms are capitalized. I've Wikilinked these terms deliberately. Click the links, and you'll see what I mean. If you still disagree, try changing "East Coast" to "east coast" in that article and see how readily those edits are accepted. You'd have to change the name of the page too.

TheAustinMan, I mostly agree with you, except that you never see "The East Coast" except at the beginning of a sentence. It's mostly a matter of convention, and it's always "the East Coast" or "the West Coast".

Now, this is a kind of gray area. It's true that if "east coast" is meant in a purely generic sense, "a description", as HurricaneHink says, we might justify "the east coast of the United States". But I think that the way we use the term, it could be justified as referring to the region commonly written in the U.S. as the "East Coast". And I think that all, or at least nearly all, Americans contributing to this page would be most comfortable seeing "East Coast" in caps. Again, a matter of local convention. Just as "rooves" seems perfectly acceptable and natural in some English-speaking countries like Australia and New Zealand (hint to HiLo48), "the East Coast" usually seems most correct to residents of the U.S.

Finally, if we all end up agreeing that the term should not be capitalized, then it should be lowercased consistently throughout the article. We can't have "the east coast of the United States" in one place and "the East Coast of the United States" everywhere else. (Just saw your edit, TropicalAnalystwx13, and clearly as an American you confirm that "East Coast" feels most natural and correct here.) --Alan W (talk) 23:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Some people have got a little cranky with me here. Right from the start I said "Maybe it's a cultural difference...", and explained my perspective. I did get a little riled when the somewhat arrogant American editor Knowledgekid87 reverted my well explained change without so much as an Edit summary. Hence my arrival here on the Talk page. (Better than his behaviour, surely?) I think I've been the polite one here. Then we got "It just IS..." as an eplanation. Now, that's just bullshit. We are trying to be a quality encyclopaedia, and must do better than that. I also see it as revealing that those claiming a unique American usage of East Coast, with capitals, point to an article that doesn't have that name at all. It's actually called East Coast of the United States, which they try to hide with a disambiguation. Now really, that's cheating. If Knowledgekid87 had shown some manners in that tiny little Edit skirmish, others had noted my original "Maybe...", and the article pointed to had really had the claimed name, this would all be over, but I think what I'm really seeing is a classic case of American exceptionalism, combined with some real arrogance. So, as I said earlier, "Maybe it's a cultural difference..." (And maybe that explains the shocking manners and poor logic on display here. Though most of my American friends are far nicer than that.) There's an awful lot of countries in the world without capitalised east coasts. I think that makes my perspective a perfectly reasonable one. I still can't comprehend what makes the USA's east coast so special. This could have been handled much better. HiLo48 (talk) 07:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The "East Coast" is a region of the United States. It describes the states from Florida to Maine. It is a proper noun. Proper nouns are capitalized. That's as simple as it can be made. Also, please let's remember WP:PA - "comment on content, not the contributor." TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I want to point out that this is not the first time Hilo has made personal attacks against editors. Now in defense of my edit I linked the term just as it had been in another part of the article so I do not see why this is being made into a huge deal or why personal attacks are being slung over if "East Coast" should be in caps or not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Yet another pointless and time consuming discussion on this talk page. We have so many articles that GA and FA that say East Coast of the United States. Nobody ever had a problem with it until HiLo48 started this lame discussion.--12george1 (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I am trying to make this a better article. How can it be my fault when, as a non-American, I question something that only Americans do, and that only Americans could be reasonably expected to know about. And, even if East Coast with capitals is a common enough term to Americans as the name of a "region", why should that form of the name be the one we use in this article. Clearly, when hurricanes or similar are talked about anywhere in the world, we mention the coastline they cross (because that's what they're doing when humans notice them the most, crossing coastlines). I submit that, while America may have a region called East Coast, it also has a coastline on its eastern side, just like scores of other countries in the world, many of whom are also impacted by hurricanes, tropical cyclones and the like. The east coast in this context is not the same thing as the East Coast. It means what it would mean for any other country, the line where the land meets the sea along its eastern seaboard. To claim that "east coast" has a different meaning from what it would when discussing a storm hitting any other country's east coast is really rather silly. So, while America has an East Coast (thank you for educating me about that), it also has an east coast, and it's not the same thing. HiLo48 (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Two ways to solve this:

1. Link American East Coast to East Coast which I have done.

2. Rename East Coast in the sentence to American East Coast.

The East Coast is a place name and as you have said a number of places around the world are named that so it should remain in caps per WP:MOSCAPS - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

No, you're still misunderstanding. I'm not aware of any other country that has a "place" named East Coast, but an awful lot of countries, including the USA, have east coasts. They are different things. HiLo48 (talk) 00:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48, the "east coast" of the United States is the shoreline of Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, etc., all the way down to Florida, comparable to how your "east coast" is the VIC/NSW/QLD shoreline. "The East Coast" of the United States is the region encompassing states that include parts of the east coast of the United States; note that "East Coast of Australia" sometimes gets comparable usage. Capitals are necessary to distinguish the region (the states) from the geographic zone (the land near the water), and the existence of other places worldwide known as "East Coast" [note several other places that appear on this page] means that we need "of the United States" to distinguish it from them. Imagine if Kwame Nkrumah's goal had succeeded and imagine if "gold" were a common adjective used to describe coasts; we'd need to have "Gold Coast of Africa" or "Gold coast of Africa" to distinguish that area from other gold coasts and from Gold Coast, Queensland. Nyttend (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)