This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A news item involving February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 19 February 2021. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Will this winter storm get a commons category, since I may get some pictures of this storm. My city currently has a 75% chance of snow at the moment, so I will likely get pictures of the snow to upload to Wikimedia Commons. DachshundLover82 ( talk) 16:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
This article is too focused on Dallas area. Texas was undergoing a state-wide crisis. Some paragraphs are not particularly relevant to the broader Texas electricity crisis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.201.228.202 ( talk) 17:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
This is the same storm as the February 11-14 storm complex that impacted the Pacific Northwest and the articles should be merged. An example of this is that they're both named Uri by The Weather Channel, clearly indicating they are related. Wikicanada1127 ( talk) 17:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
In the weather channel article about Uri it says "it's the same system that produced 11.1 inches in Seattle". Wikicanada1127 ( talk) 22:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Also Tabitha was the storm that brought ice to the Mid-Atlantic. Wikicanada1127 ( talk) 23:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Wikicanada1127: The two systems were very close to one another and affected the Pacific Northwest just days apart, but they are NOT the same. However, MarioProtIV, I think (a) we need to combine the articles because it is really hard to keep track of the different impacts from each or (b) better expound upon both of them because it is a little confusing. ChessEric ( talk · contribs) 01:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
The large snowstorm that affected the PMW was Uri the one that brought the ice storm to the Mid Atlantic. How about we create and article named "Mid February North American winter storms" or something like that? Wikicanada1127 ( talk) 05:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Can we all acknowledge the fact that the Weather Channel names storms for publicity purposes? This statement comes from the NWS: "The National Weather Service does not name winter storms because a winter storm's impact can vary from one location to another, and storms can weaken and redevelop, making it difficult to define where one ends and another begins." So in other words... yes this could very well be the same storm. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 18:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nominator Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 20:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
February 13–16, 2021 North American winter storm → Winter Storm Uri – While the name is "unofficial", it is used somewhat commonly in reporting, and is a better name than the daily-changing thing we currently use. I'm open to other options too, I just don't want to have to update this daily. Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 15:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
This was strongly opposed; should we remove or move it from the top of the lead too? Don't think we need to give TWC's naming such prominence, even if not the title. Reywas92 Talk 20:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Tropical storms naming are officially recognized globally. Unofficially recognized naming of winter storms by the weather channel is a weather marketing effort to draw attention to their reporting. I do not think promoting TWC's unofficial naming is appropriate in this or other storm articles. Doyna Yar ( talk) 20:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I found this source for 23 deaths in Texas. Would these be considered as direct or indirect because the article doesn't make it exactly clear. ~~ 🅠🌀 ð•¾ð–šð–•ð–Šð–— ð•®ð–žð–ˆð–‘ð–”ð–“ð–Žð–ˆ ð•¾ð–™ð–”ð–—ð–’ ð•®ð–”ð–—ð–”ð–“𖆠🌀🅠14:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:February 2021 North American ice storm which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 18:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
it seems it could warrant its own thing Camdoodlebop ( talk) 00:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I also feel there should be a separate page (e.g. Texas Winter Storm and Energy Crisis). Already the section on Texas is longer than any other section in this article, and there is still a lot more information to add: the federal response, background on Texas' independent power grid, food supply chain breakdown... I think it is easily enough content to warrant its own article. Moreover, many people are searching for information on the crisis in Texas now and they are much less likely to find it if it is all contained under the heading "February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm." Burritok ( talk) 04:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
thanks for agreeing with me. i’m not sure why that first person was so negative and rude to my suggestion, but what can you do! Camdoodlebop ( talk) 01:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
https://www.dvidshub.net/image/6521897/oklahoma-national-guard-partnered-with-ohp-assist-motorists-winter-weather Victor Grigas ( talk) 02:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorgrigas ( talk • contribs)
Include:
142.120.100.241 ( talk) 05:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I really think the main image should be of the storm or a map of its impacts over the southern plains / Texas. Virtually none of the most historic / significant impacts were in the Northeast yet that is where the storm is in the infobox's graphic. Master of Time ( talk) 23:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Would this article benefit from being split into another one called "2021 Texas Electricity Crisis"?
I think using this article to speak about the meteorology and geography of the storm, and linking it to an article focused on its social and political effects in Texas would benefit readers. That article could highlight infrastructural neglect, inequality in the water and power grid, and track longer effects on Texan society. One of the dominant streams of discussion around this storm is how the effects of this storm is disproportionately affecting minority populations in Texan metros. The reason why this disproportionate effect occurs is because of longer-term deregulations and shorter-term responses, especially attitudes of climate change denial amongst legislators. I feel that a meteorological article and a societal article have different standards of cause-and-effect which should not be mixed here.
2600:1700:5890:69F0:65CE:7A05:F167:FFB0 ( talk) 14:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm →
Winter Storm Uri – Following on the last RM, which was procedurally closed, I'd like to propose this again. Per
WP:COMMONNAME, Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used
. This says that we do not "wait" for an "official" name to be given, and that unofficial names are just as acceptable, and sometimes even more so. Per the
article naming criteria, a title must be recognizable, natural, precise, concise, and consistent
. The current title fails three of those criteria. The proposed title fails only one (consistency, but that can be remedied). The current title is ambiguous, as it overlaps with
at least one other article. The current title is not natural, as most people do not discuss storms in terms of dates past a month. The current title is not concise because... well that one should be obvious. The proposed title is recognizable, natural, precise, and concise - which meets almost all of the criteria for naming.
While I completely understand why people do not want to support a "commercialization" of storms/disasters/etc, this is a much different situation than when TWC first introduced their naming system. As of now, even Google has taken on the name Winter Storm Uri, as have multiple other reliable sources, but not any of the "big" sources such as major national networks. To look at an unbiased view, one can look at news organizations which don't compete with NBC (who own TWC). In international news, the proposed title is used almost exclusively to refer to this storm. For these reasons, I feel that there is no policy-based reason to not move this page. A local consensus to violate the naming policy by prohibiting names that are clearly in the best compliance with that policy does not override the project-wide consensus of that policy. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 04:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
I think we should to the article about the temperatures, which is the main cause for such an event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Beryman ( talk • contribs) 14:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I was thinking we should cover the effects also outside of the US, as the affected regions also say Southern Greenland. Anyone have any info to add? -- Djstriker91 ( talk) 18:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
This article does not address how the storm impacted low-income and minority communities disproportionately (especially in Houston), especially since these communities were also those already hit hardest by the pandemic. I think it would be a valuable addition either as a separate heading or subheading under impact. Also, the "Aftermath" section is extremely short and could benefit from additional information about the long-term consequences of the storm, such as legislative plans to improve Texas' energy infrastructure. One other potential change could be to separate the "Preparations and impact" section into two separate section with a more concise summary of preparations and a full section just for "Impact" detailing the storm's effects. I think this would aid the organizational clarity. Also, even though there is already a separate page on the Texas power crisis, including a separate section on this page referencing the Texas power grid's failure could be beneficial for additional context. Amykuriakose ( talk) 02:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
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.
I suggest merging the coldwave article into this one since they are directly related to each other and NOAA lists them as one event here. It would make sense to have a single article covering the entire event rather than splitting it into two. A retitling would also be required here if it is merged. We may also need to merge February 15–20, 2021 North American winter storm as well since it directly followed the February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm and largely compounded its effects. I'm thinking it may be a better idea to discuss this by area rather than by storm. The aftermaths are overlapping significantly and the cold temps of the coldwave were still in play during the second storm as well. If we are going to get this event to GA or FA, I think we need to cover it by country/state instead of having three articles split by storm and the coldwave. AON and NOAA list this as one whole event. Noah Talk 04:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Former !vote
|
---|
|
"A cold wave, in addition to winter storms Uri and Viola, kills at least 278 people, causes power outages for millions of people across the United States, and causes $198.6 billion (2021 USD) in damage. This cold wave also led to the 2021 Texas power crisis which resulted in 210 to 702 deaths.". If that statement is factually true, then a merge would make no sense as the winter storm and cold wave are entirely separate. I could be wrong, so if I am please correct that statement. Elijahandskip ( talk) 06:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
{{
Talk:February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm/Sources}}
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "NCEI":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT âš¡ 08:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
In the article, it says that, "The system is estimated to have cost over $196.5 billion (2021 USD) in damages ... making it the costliest winter storm on record, as well as the costliest natural disaster recorded in the United States." However, NECI in their Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters only has the damage toll at $25.6 billion. This issue was also brought up in Talk:Hurricane Katrina but not acknowledged. RandomInfinity17 ( talk) 00:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
The NECI/NCDC/NOAA damage totals would not make the winter storms the costliest system but the local government one would which is why I want to see more sources backing it up. Jason Rees ( talk) 20:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A news item involving February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 19 February 2021. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Will this winter storm get a commons category, since I may get some pictures of this storm. My city currently has a 75% chance of snow at the moment, so I will likely get pictures of the snow to upload to Wikimedia Commons. DachshundLover82 ( talk) 16:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
This article is too focused on Dallas area. Texas was undergoing a state-wide crisis. Some paragraphs are not particularly relevant to the broader Texas electricity crisis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.201.228.202 ( talk) 17:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
This is the same storm as the February 11-14 storm complex that impacted the Pacific Northwest and the articles should be merged. An example of this is that they're both named Uri by The Weather Channel, clearly indicating they are related. Wikicanada1127 ( talk) 17:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
In the weather channel article about Uri it says "it's the same system that produced 11.1 inches in Seattle". Wikicanada1127 ( talk) 22:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Also Tabitha was the storm that brought ice to the Mid-Atlantic. Wikicanada1127 ( talk) 23:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Wikicanada1127: The two systems were very close to one another and affected the Pacific Northwest just days apart, but they are NOT the same. However, MarioProtIV, I think (a) we need to combine the articles because it is really hard to keep track of the different impacts from each or (b) better expound upon both of them because it is a little confusing. ChessEric ( talk · contribs) 01:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
The large snowstorm that affected the PMW was Uri the one that brought the ice storm to the Mid Atlantic. How about we create and article named "Mid February North American winter storms" or something like that? Wikicanada1127 ( talk) 05:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Can we all acknowledge the fact that the Weather Channel names storms for publicity purposes? This statement comes from the NWS: "The National Weather Service does not name winter storms because a winter storm's impact can vary from one location to another, and storms can weaken and redevelop, making it difficult to define where one ends and another begins." So in other words... yes this could very well be the same storm. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 18:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nominator Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 20:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
February 13–16, 2021 North American winter storm → Winter Storm Uri – While the name is "unofficial", it is used somewhat commonly in reporting, and is a better name than the daily-changing thing we currently use. I'm open to other options too, I just don't want to have to update this daily. Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 15:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
This was strongly opposed; should we remove or move it from the top of the lead too? Don't think we need to give TWC's naming such prominence, even if not the title. Reywas92 Talk 20:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Tropical storms naming are officially recognized globally. Unofficially recognized naming of winter storms by the weather channel is a weather marketing effort to draw attention to their reporting. I do not think promoting TWC's unofficial naming is appropriate in this or other storm articles. Doyna Yar ( talk) 20:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I found this source for 23 deaths in Texas. Would these be considered as direct or indirect because the article doesn't make it exactly clear. ~~ 🅠🌀 ð•¾ð–šð–•ð–Šð–— ð•®ð–žð–ˆð–‘ð–”ð–“ð–Žð–ˆ ð•¾ð–™ð–”ð–—ð–’ ð•®ð–”ð–—ð–”ð–“𖆠🌀🅠14:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:February 2021 North American ice storm which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 18:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
it seems it could warrant its own thing Camdoodlebop ( talk) 00:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I also feel there should be a separate page (e.g. Texas Winter Storm and Energy Crisis). Already the section on Texas is longer than any other section in this article, and there is still a lot more information to add: the federal response, background on Texas' independent power grid, food supply chain breakdown... I think it is easily enough content to warrant its own article. Moreover, many people are searching for information on the crisis in Texas now and they are much less likely to find it if it is all contained under the heading "February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm." Burritok ( talk) 04:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
thanks for agreeing with me. i’m not sure why that first person was so negative and rude to my suggestion, but what can you do! Camdoodlebop ( talk) 01:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
https://www.dvidshub.net/image/6521897/oklahoma-national-guard-partnered-with-ohp-assist-motorists-winter-weather Victor Grigas ( talk) 02:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorgrigas ( talk • contribs)
Include:
142.120.100.241 ( talk) 05:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I really think the main image should be of the storm or a map of its impacts over the southern plains / Texas. Virtually none of the most historic / significant impacts were in the Northeast yet that is where the storm is in the infobox's graphic. Master of Time ( talk) 23:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Would this article benefit from being split into another one called "2021 Texas Electricity Crisis"?
I think using this article to speak about the meteorology and geography of the storm, and linking it to an article focused on its social and political effects in Texas would benefit readers. That article could highlight infrastructural neglect, inequality in the water and power grid, and track longer effects on Texan society. One of the dominant streams of discussion around this storm is how the effects of this storm is disproportionately affecting minority populations in Texan metros. The reason why this disproportionate effect occurs is because of longer-term deregulations and shorter-term responses, especially attitudes of climate change denial amongst legislators. I feel that a meteorological article and a societal article have different standards of cause-and-effect which should not be mixed here.
2600:1700:5890:69F0:65CE:7A05:F167:FFB0 ( talk) 14:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm →
Winter Storm Uri – Following on the last RM, which was procedurally closed, I'd like to propose this again. Per
WP:COMMONNAME, Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used
. This says that we do not "wait" for an "official" name to be given, and that unofficial names are just as acceptable, and sometimes even more so. Per the
article naming criteria, a title must be recognizable, natural, precise, concise, and consistent
. The current title fails three of those criteria. The proposed title fails only one (consistency, but that can be remedied). The current title is ambiguous, as it overlaps with
at least one other article. The current title is not natural, as most people do not discuss storms in terms of dates past a month. The current title is not concise because... well that one should be obvious. The proposed title is recognizable, natural, precise, and concise - which meets almost all of the criteria for naming.
While I completely understand why people do not want to support a "commercialization" of storms/disasters/etc, this is a much different situation than when TWC first introduced their naming system. As of now, even Google has taken on the name Winter Storm Uri, as have multiple other reliable sources, but not any of the "big" sources such as major national networks. To look at an unbiased view, one can look at news organizations which don't compete with NBC (who own TWC). In international news, the proposed title is used almost exclusively to refer to this storm. For these reasons, I feel that there is no policy-based reason to not move this page. A local consensus to violate the naming policy by prohibiting names that are clearly in the best compliance with that policy does not override the project-wide consensus of that policy. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 04:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
I think we should to the article about the temperatures, which is the main cause for such an event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Beryman ( talk • contribs) 14:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I was thinking we should cover the effects also outside of the US, as the affected regions also say Southern Greenland. Anyone have any info to add? -- Djstriker91 ( talk) 18:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
This article does not address how the storm impacted low-income and minority communities disproportionately (especially in Houston), especially since these communities were also those already hit hardest by the pandemic. I think it would be a valuable addition either as a separate heading or subheading under impact. Also, the "Aftermath" section is extremely short and could benefit from additional information about the long-term consequences of the storm, such as legislative plans to improve Texas' energy infrastructure. One other potential change could be to separate the "Preparations and impact" section into two separate section with a more concise summary of preparations and a full section just for "Impact" detailing the storm's effects. I think this would aid the organizational clarity. Also, even though there is already a separate page on the Texas power crisis, including a separate section on this page referencing the Texas power grid's failure could be beneficial for additional context. Amykuriakose ( talk) 02:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
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.
I suggest merging the coldwave article into this one since they are directly related to each other and NOAA lists them as one event here. It would make sense to have a single article covering the entire event rather than splitting it into two. A retitling would also be required here if it is merged. We may also need to merge February 15–20, 2021 North American winter storm as well since it directly followed the February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm and largely compounded its effects. I'm thinking it may be a better idea to discuss this by area rather than by storm. The aftermaths are overlapping significantly and the cold temps of the coldwave were still in play during the second storm as well. If we are going to get this event to GA or FA, I think we need to cover it by country/state instead of having three articles split by storm and the coldwave. AON and NOAA list this as one whole event. Noah Talk 04:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Former !vote
|
---|
|
"A cold wave, in addition to winter storms Uri and Viola, kills at least 278 people, causes power outages for millions of people across the United States, and causes $198.6 billion (2021 USD) in damage. This cold wave also led to the 2021 Texas power crisis which resulted in 210 to 702 deaths.". If that statement is factually true, then a merge would make no sense as the winter storm and cold wave are entirely separate. I could be wrong, so if I am please correct that statement. Elijahandskip ( talk) 06:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
{{
Talk:February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm/Sources}}
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "NCEI":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT âš¡ 08:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
In the article, it says that, "The system is estimated to have cost over $196.5 billion (2021 USD) in damages ... making it the costliest winter storm on record, as well as the costliest natural disaster recorded in the United States." However, NECI in their Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters only has the damage toll at $25.6 billion. This issue was also brought up in Talk:Hurricane Katrina but not acknowledged. RandomInfinity17 ( talk) 00:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
The NECI/NCDC/NOAA damage totals would not make the winter storms the costliest system but the local government one would which is why I want to see more sources backing it up. Jason Rees ( talk) 20:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)