Talk:2021 snowstorm in Madrid

Snowfall thickness

The source says 50 to 60cm of accumulated snow. It is from the most reliable source - weather stations across the city. Asqueladd please stop removing the source with nonsensical arguments and don't edit war. Thanks. --Huasteca (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

According to the source (Using DeepL translate):

Madrid's Aemet stations in Retiro, Cuatro Vientos, Getafe and Navacerrada have registered snow thicknesses of between 50 and 60 centimeters during the last few days, according to the measurements made by their staff, that institution has informed.

In Retiro, the measurement of snow deposited on the ground throws between 50 and 60 centimeters fallen between 7 and yesterday, January 9, as in Getafe, while in Cuatro Vientos accumulated 55 centimeters, the same thickness as in Barajas, according to a report by the territorial delegate of the Aemet, Cayetano Torres, sent to Efe. https://www.lavanguardia.com/vida/20210110/6179383/observatorios-madrid-registraron-espesores-nieve-50-60-cms.html --Huasteca (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Huasteca: Use the body of the article to state that in the Cuatro Vientos station it was measured amount A in period X, in Barajas amount B in period Y and in Retiro amount C in period Z. Do not combine material (the phrase you are hellbent on removing refers to the 30 hour long snowfall, btw) and pay attention to WP:DUE weight of the reports. And stay civil, because pulling the "removing idiocy" move is not quite civil and could led you to end up blocked.--Asqueladd (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Asqueladd: Are you serious? Please tell me you are not. I don't even know what to respond to such an argument. Combining material? What are you talking about?Huasteca (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Asqueladd: Also please explain to me this Due weight argument? You think there undue weight is given to Spain's Metereological Agency AEMET? The single official state organism in charge of measuring accumulated snow? Please do explain because so far I don't get either of your two arguments Huasteca (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Asqueladd: Since I don't see any way of even construing your arguments as hypothetically logical I think we should take it to arbitration.Huasteca (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I am dead serious. You are combining material from two sources to state something that it is not reported in either of them (that's doing WP:SYNTH). You are not giving WP:DUE weight either. Revert to the stable version.--Asqueladd (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Asqueladd: Ok Im going to assume good faith and that you truly believe you are in the right on this but it is really really hard to. I am using one single source which is La Vanguardia. La Vanguardia cites AEMET. No one is "combining sources".

It seems you want the article to say that the snowfall in Madrid was between 30cm and 50cm in accumulated snow.

The problem is that our reliable source reports that Spain's national meterological AEMET has measured (on the 9th of Jan thickness of snow deposited on the ground at 55 cm in Retiro park which is in central Madrid. Cuatro Vientos measuring station which is also in Madrid city has also given 55 cm. Do you see the discrepancy? What exactly is your argument because so far it does not make sense. Please read the source you are deleting again. Huasteca (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Before your inteverntion (I am still waiting for you to comply to WP:BRD), the source and the article stated "The episode featured 30 hours of continuous snowfall between 8 and 9 January, leaving 50.5 mm of precipitation and between 30 and 50 cm of accumulated snow in the city neighbourhooods" (according to an AEMET spokesperson, btw) 1) Why did you remove the source and distort what the source state? The article reads now like if in 30 hours between 8 and 9 January 60 cm of snow was accumulated and no source states that. Did you forget that it also snowed on 7 January.--Asqueladd (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok part of this argument I can at least understand and have edited accordingly. The snowstorm associated to Filomena was indeed between the 7th and the 9th although the bulk of the snow fell between 1:00 am and 8 am on the 9th I would say. I have edited the article to separate the two statements which maybe is what you meant by Synth?? Evidently AEMET statements take precedence of other sources in terms of reliability on accumulated snow. I still have no idea what you are talking abour regarding due weight. Huasteca (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Aftermath section

Considering Madrid remains in bad condition 8 days after the snowfall it might be worth including an aftermath section.Huasteca (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes why not. The littering chaos, for example. Even some sources may connect some dots and link the episode to the current climbing black rats infestation.--Asqueladd (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Topic of the article

The topic of the article has been since its creation and until some attempts to modify it today a snowstorm in the city of Madrid and its effects. I beg you to consider creating the article for the wider event, before, because failing to gain a consensus these attempts much qualify as a disruptive behaviour. There is no impedement not to overwrite the redirect if you are willing to create that article, which of course should need to deal with the low pressure system and its effects in Morocco, Spain, Portugal, et al, including mammoth snowstorms in Guadalajara, Toledo, Cuenca, Zaragoza et al...--Asqueladd (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

There it was, Storm Filomena. MarioJump83! 02:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Merge

:The following discussion is an archived discussion of a Merge Proposal and / or Redirect.Please do not modify it.
The result of the request for the Proposed Merger of {requested article} into this talk page's article was: Consensus Reached–Awaiting Merge
Proposer or other interested editor should proceed with the merge, preserving unique information from the source article. GenQuest ^"scribble" 06:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
— — — — —

From Buttons0603: This content already exists at Storm Filomena and is not notable as an article on its own. Please stop reverting these changes, this is not how we do meteorology articles on Wikipedia. This suggests a WP:CFORK. MarioJump83! 01:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose No. Wikipedia areas of scope intersect Wikipedia all the time. The event in Madrid is a 100-year event, a lot of coverage of reliable sources, notabilities of its own. But Madrid appropriating the general article would create heavy BALASP issues. Also keep WP:PAPER in mind. It is not a fork, but an article describing a part of an event. Happens all the time in Wikipedia. Is History of Madrid a fork of History of Spain?--Asqueladd (talk) 02:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Developing my position against merging (as this has turned into a formal merger proposal). Opposing this because of:

1. sheer coverage of sources for the local event
2. the notability vis-à-vis the urban history the city
3. the best way to develop and understand the Madrid event and ensuing massive disruption (how events unraveled) being a standalone article.
4. avoiding WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALASP distortions because of laziness to cover other locations in the main article
5. WP:PAPER

I also dispute the argument that articles only belong to a "single" Wikiproject acting like there are no intersections (particularly if the argument is aimed towards discarding entries which may more relevant to another area, ie: History of Madrid).--Asqueladd (talk) 07:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support As far as I know, meteorological articles in Wikipedia aren't known to be really that balancing - probably as far as not even matter at all. If this article were to be kept, then we should be rethinking about how do we do meteorology articles on Wikipedia. Also, we shouldn't try to use other articles of Wikipedia into here. There are differences on how WPTC (and the rest of descendant WikiProjects of WikiProject Meteorology) does their articles versus the most of WikiProjects do. By the way, started this discussion in behalf of Buttons0603, so I can give my comments here. MarioJump83! 02:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I am also going to develop my position and rebut these points. I am going to use Hurricane Michael article as an example:

1. Hurricane Michael also has these sources. And they aren't the reason why a standalone article exists. You may take a look at Effects of Hurricane Michael in Florida, in which, of course, redirects to that article.
2. What?! For us, this is clearly WP:TRIVIA. In fact, Jason Rees reverted my edit on Cyclone Owen about the fun facts of Owen itself.
3. I disagree with you about this. You can take a look at Hurricane Michael. We can develop it without being a stand-alone article.
4. This isn't what we do regarding meteorological articles in Wikipedia. To us, having some balance between meteorological history, preparations, impacts and the aftermath is the key here. You can take a look why Meteorological history of Hurricane Michael got merged to Hurricane Michael, because there is WP:BALASP and WP:WEIGHT issues in that article. Regarding "laziness", if there is any effort on our side willing to give something to the article, then we can get it done.
5. WP:PAPER does include keeping articles into reasonable sizes and length. Merging this and Storm Filomena is still in the reasonable length for an article, so was Meteorological history of Hurricane Michael into Hurricane Michael.

Most articles on WPTC belong to other WikiProjects, but we happened to be the ones who handles these articles the most. Regarding this, I don't think you understand much about how WikiProject Non-tropical storms work, which clearly modeled after WPTC. MarioJump83! 00:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support - can be adequately covered in the target article, which is better for researchers to keep all information in one place. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - I have this article listed in Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers so there will be a closer who is prominent in there. MarioJump83! 06:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Support – The articles are clearly about the same storm, and neither of them are lengthy. It would be better to have everything together in one place. If the impacts in Spain become so extensively-detailed that we need to split off a separate article for the impacts, then we can discuss that further down the line, if/when that happens. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support Clearly the same storm and we don't need two different articles for the same storm. Besides, it's better to have everything about the same storm in the same article. HurricaneCovid _(contribs) 23:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Support:- As stated by LightandDark and HurricaneCovid ~~ 🏅🌀𝕾𝖚𝖕𝖊𝖗 𝕮𝖞𝖈𝖑𝖔𝖓𝖎𝖈 𝕾𝖙𝖔𝖗𝖒 𝕮𝖔𝖗𝖔𝖓𝖆🌀🏅 18:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support per above. Thankyou @MarioJump83: for starting a discussion to hopefully get this resolved either way - I didn't discuss it myself as I really didn't expect it to be so controversial. The dramas of being bold and all that! Buttons0603 (talk) 00:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

— — — — —
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a WP:PM.

Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GenQuest ^"scribble" 06:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

A copy of this template can be found here.

I am going to merge this once I come back from my trip. MarioJump83! 00:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. Do not split the article again without discussion per WP:BRD. MarioJump83! 12:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)