This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the
project page for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iceland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Iceland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IcelandWikipedia:WikiProject IcelandTemplate:WikiProject IcelandIceland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles
It's not a typhoon, so it wouldn't be an apples to apples comparison.
Thegreatdr (
talk) 17:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Agreed - no comparison necessary, no equivalence there. But I don't see why the figure alone can't be mentioned - it is one massive storm.
Buttons0603 (
talk) 22:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Resolved - actually the 9th!
Buttons0603 (
talk) 22:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Comparative strength
Can anyone who wants to add either version of these edits
[1] pleae stop doing this, or provide a reliable source about Dennis claiming this? Per
WP:SYNTH, we may not add such "facts" based on older reports only, but without anything backing it up for the current storm (if it is true but no one reliable has reported it, it is
WP:UNDUE anyway to include it). Leaving this out of the article is not a problem: edit warring over it with no or outdated sources ("outdated" for this 2020 storm) is not right though.
Fram (
talk) 15:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
It's at least a tie for third deepest since 1986...but other deeper storms impacted northwest Europe before that which are referenced in the European pressure extremes article. Best not refer to Braer in the article, though adding it in as a See Also isn't a bad idea.
Thegreatdr (
talk) 17:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)reply
What's the point of adding it as a "See also", when there is nothing in the article even resembling an explanation of its relevance?
Ghmyrtle (
talk) 18:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)reply
I think there is relevant material in one of the external links, the NOAA Satellite Liaison Blog. Though I don't know of any credible analysis of a pressure as low as 910 hPa.
Lacunae (
talk) 19:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)reply
The lowest I have seen is the ECMWF post-analysis at 919mb, but this was on a tweet, so not sure how accurate. Most sources are saying 920.
This source from The Weather Channel, which I have added, does definitively show Dennis as the second strongest North Atlantic low ever recorded behind Braer.
Buttons0603 (
talk) 22:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)reply
I have read it before. That paper, while very useful in other cases, is for pressure measured on land in the British Isles only. Dennis and the Braer Storm both had their deepest lows well offshore, and Dennis' was far closer to Iceland than the UK in any case.
Buttons0603 (
talk) 23:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)reply
I have also seen 919 mbar on icon analysis at ventusky.com, category 5 hurricane 🌀 nonetheless!
Edit of edit (
talk) 07:09, 14 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Braer hurricane (913 mbar, 85 mph) was as strong as hurricane irma (914 mbar, 185 mph) by pressure
Edit of edit (
talk) 07:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Use of American (unofficial names)
The names of these storms is confusing enough without adding private weather company naming schemes from the US into the mix so prominently. the name Mabel is a minor footnote, Victoria according to the FUB is by far the more widely used synonym.
Lacunae (
talk) 17:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Unofficial or not, Mabel is the
WP:COMMONNAME in North America, and worth a mention since there were widespread impacts there that I've since added. From what I have seen Victoria (from the FUB) is neither an official nor common name (Dennis fits both of those for Europe) so a footnote should suffice.
Buttons0603 (
talk) 22:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)reply
I don't mean to be rude, but this is utter codswallop.
Lacunae (
talk) 23:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm really not sure it is. Do you suggest another common name for North America? There isn't one because there is no official naming system over there. As for the Free University of Berlin, they are not a government meterological department like the Met Office etc therefore their names are as unofficial as The Weather Channel's, whether they are widely used or not. Whether they are used commonly or not seems to vary from storm to storm but Dennis has been used far more than Victoria for this one.
Buttons0603 (
talk) 23:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)reply
see post below.
Lacunae (
talk) 00:19, 19 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Constructive criticism and page modification
If a certain editor refuses to accept constructive criticism and page editing, then I suggest another format may be more auspicious for you.
Lacunae (
talk) 23:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)reply
There is no need for attacks.
This edit was an attempt at a compromise between our differing views - I am sorry that you didn't find it acceptable and I'm willing to see what you can suggest alternatively. However, then you went and reverted it all, wiping out a large unrelated edit to the UK impacts section in the process (which I have reverted you simply in order to reinstate that). Please don't go heavy-handed with the reverting elsewhere.
Buttons0603 (
talk) 00:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)reply
I don't think that's the main issue here but regardless, good idea – the UK section on Dennis is getting a bit big and bulky anyway and I was thinking of splitting it into something along the lines of Effects of Storm Dennis in the United Kingdom anyway. Instead of that I shall go ahead and move
2019 England floods to
2019–20 United Kingdom floods and
WP:SPLIT much of the content to there along with applicable content from the
Storm Ciara article, then the Ciara & Dennis articles can be focused on impacts in other countries, wind effects, meteorological background etc.
Buttons0603 (
talk) 21:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)reply
While a split was obviously a good idea, I'm concerned as to how it's been done @
Buttons0603:. To give just one example,
2019–20 United Kingdom floods#Elsewhere is nothing to do with floods, if it's to be included anywhere it should be here.
FDW777 (
talk) 12:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)reply
They are kind of connected? But I agree, might be better brought back here.
Martinevans123 (
talk) 10:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Sorry I just copied the whole thing forgetting about that part. I'll move wind impacts back here.
Buttons0603 (
talk) 22:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the
project page for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iceland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Iceland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IcelandWikipedia:WikiProject IcelandTemplate:WikiProject IcelandIceland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles
It's not a typhoon, so it wouldn't be an apples to apples comparison.
Thegreatdr (
talk) 17:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Agreed - no comparison necessary, no equivalence there. But I don't see why the figure alone can't be mentioned - it is one massive storm.
Buttons0603 (
talk) 22:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Resolved - actually the 9th!
Buttons0603 (
talk) 22:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Comparative strength
Can anyone who wants to add either version of these edits
[1] pleae stop doing this, or provide a reliable source about Dennis claiming this? Per
WP:SYNTH, we may not add such "facts" based on older reports only, but without anything backing it up for the current storm (if it is true but no one reliable has reported it, it is
WP:UNDUE anyway to include it). Leaving this out of the article is not a problem: edit warring over it with no or outdated sources ("outdated" for this 2020 storm) is not right though.
Fram (
talk) 15:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
It's at least a tie for third deepest since 1986...but other deeper storms impacted northwest Europe before that which are referenced in the European pressure extremes article. Best not refer to Braer in the article, though adding it in as a See Also isn't a bad idea.
Thegreatdr (
talk) 17:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)reply
What's the point of adding it as a "See also", when there is nothing in the article even resembling an explanation of its relevance?
Ghmyrtle (
talk) 18:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)reply
I think there is relevant material in one of the external links, the NOAA Satellite Liaison Blog. Though I don't know of any credible analysis of a pressure as low as 910 hPa.
Lacunae (
talk) 19:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)reply
The lowest I have seen is the ECMWF post-analysis at 919mb, but this was on a tweet, so not sure how accurate. Most sources are saying 920.
This source from The Weather Channel, which I have added, does definitively show Dennis as the second strongest North Atlantic low ever recorded behind Braer.
Buttons0603 (
talk) 22:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)reply
I have read it before. That paper, while very useful in other cases, is for pressure measured on land in the British Isles only. Dennis and the Braer Storm both had their deepest lows well offshore, and Dennis' was far closer to Iceland than the UK in any case.
Buttons0603 (
talk) 23:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)reply
I have also seen 919 mbar on icon analysis at ventusky.com, category 5 hurricane 🌀 nonetheless!
Edit of edit (
talk) 07:09, 14 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Braer hurricane (913 mbar, 85 mph) was as strong as hurricane irma (914 mbar, 185 mph) by pressure
Edit of edit (
talk) 07:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Use of American (unofficial names)
The names of these storms is confusing enough without adding private weather company naming schemes from the US into the mix so prominently. the name Mabel is a minor footnote, Victoria according to the FUB is by far the more widely used synonym.
Lacunae (
talk) 17:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Unofficial or not, Mabel is the
WP:COMMONNAME in North America, and worth a mention since there were widespread impacts there that I've since added. From what I have seen Victoria (from the FUB) is neither an official nor common name (Dennis fits both of those for Europe) so a footnote should suffice.
Buttons0603 (
talk) 22:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)reply
I don't mean to be rude, but this is utter codswallop.
Lacunae (
talk) 23:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm really not sure it is. Do you suggest another common name for North America? There isn't one because there is no official naming system over there. As for the Free University of Berlin, they are not a government meterological department like the Met Office etc therefore their names are as unofficial as The Weather Channel's, whether they are widely used or not. Whether they are used commonly or not seems to vary from storm to storm but Dennis has been used far more than Victoria for this one.
Buttons0603 (
talk) 23:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)reply
see post below.
Lacunae (
talk) 00:19, 19 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Constructive criticism and page modification
If a certain editor refuses to accept constructive criticism and page editing, then I suggest another format may be more auspicious for you.
Lacunae (
talk) 23:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)reply
There is no need for attacks.
This edit was an attempt at a compromise between our differing views - I am sorry that you didn't find it acceptable and I'm willing to see what you can suggest alternatively. However, then you went and reverted it all, wiping out a large unrelated edit to the UK impacts section in the process (which I have reverted you simply in order to reinstate that). Please don't go heavy-handed with the reverting elsewhere.
Buttons0603 (
talk) 00:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)reply
I don't think that's the main issue here but regardless, good idea – the UK section on Dennis is getting a bit big and bulky anyway and I was thinking of splitting it into something along the lines of Effects of Storm Dennis in the United Kingdom anyway. Instead of that I shall go ahead and move
2019 England floods to
2019–20 United Kingdom floods and
WP:SPLIT much of the content to there along with applicable content from the
Storm Ciara article, then the Ciara & Dennis articles can be focused on impacts in other countries, wind effects, meteorological background etc.
Buttons0603 (
talk) 21:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)reply
While a split was obviously a good idea, I'm concerned as to how it's been done @
Buttons0603:. To give just one example,
2019–20 United Kingdom floods#Elsewhere is nothing to do with floods, if it's to be included anywhere it should be here.
FDW777 (
talk) 12:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)reply
They are kind of connected? But I agree, might be better brought back here.
Martinevans123 (
talk) 10:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Sorry I just copied the whole thing forgetting about that part. I'll move wind impacts back here.
Buttons0603 (
talk) 22:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)reply