Talk:Hurricane Sandy/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"Superstorm Sandy" in first sentence as alternate title?

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.

---

It's now approaching the one year anniversary of the storm. Before we get there, I think we should settle whether or not to include the name "Superstorm Sandy" in the first sentence. "Superstorm Sandy" gets a hefty 3.7 million Google hits (compared to 15 million for "Hurricane Sandy". I believe the article does a disservice by not including the alternate name. Just six days ago, FEMA called it "Superstorm Sandy", the National Weather Service called it as such, and it continues to be a regular name in the news (see CNN). At this point, it's become a perfectly valid alternative name to the event, and it should be treated as such in the first sentence as:

Hurricane Sandy (unofficially known as Superstorm Sandy) was the deadliest and most destructive hurricane of the 2012 Atlantic hurricane season

--♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Given the support it's gained over the past few months, I agree with using the alternative name in the first sentence. Of course, I always have. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I still don't understand why we don't just rename the article as Superstorm Sandy per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:LASTING. See also: 1947 Fort Lauderdale hurricane also known as Hurricane George. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Per commonname, "Hurricane Sandy" is more popular, but Superstorm Sandy is a strong second. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay then, well I agree that it should be placed in the lead as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a small addition but I think you should link Superstorm as not everyone knows the term. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I too would support putting the alternate name in the opening sentence. It seems to be used often enough. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• 3.7 million unique hits? 3.7 million reliable, respectable, scientific hits? Nope, just random Google crap. I think Knowledgekid87's post is very telling: He thinks we should link to "superstorm", since not everyone knows the term. Not everyone knows the term because there's no such thing. Linking wouldn't help, because "superstorm" doesn't have an article. Because there's no such thing. It's a disambiguation page, which offers readers a link to "super storm" which is really just a link to storm. And that's the problem with putting this stupid crap in the lede: People start to believe it's actually a real thing. There is no such thing as a superstorm, and it's not our job to list every ridiculous made-up nickname given to everything that has an article, no matter how many times it's repeated. If we really have to do this again, I hope you won't mind too much if I just copy and paste answers from last year, since literally every possible argument has already been covered and nothing has changed. Aspire to be better than Britannica, people. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 04:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • You have long been against the Superstorm label, and I was waiting for your reply. You say "there's no such thing", but what does that matter if it's a very common name? The name "Superstorm Sandy" is very much a name for the event that occurred last October. What has changed is the legacy of the event, and how the alternate name is still very viable. As an encyclopedia, we should indicate what people call it, such as FEMA, the NWS, and CNN, to name a few. You have yet to provide a reason not to include in the first sentence that convinces me not to, and calling it "stupid crap in the lede" isn't helpful. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
    • You ask why it matters that there's no such thing as a superstorm (which my spell checker just flagged as an incorrect word!). It matters because this is a serious encyclopaedia, not a venue for spreading made up words. Stick to the proper name. It never helps having two separate names for the one event, and we shouldn't encourage it. HiLo48 (talk) 05:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, but I'm not gonna let you say stuff like this without a response. You think that because Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia, we can't have an alternate title? We have articles like Hurricane Bawbag (which also includes the official name), and February 2013 nor'easter (which, le gasp, includes two alternate names!). Two weather articles in the past few years that include unofficial names in the first sentence. Wikipedia very much should encourage giving two separate names for one event - WP:TITLE says "Since no two articles can have the same title, it is sometimes necessary to add distinguishing information, often in the form of a description in parentheses after the name." Furthermore, no one on Wiki made up the term "superstorm". It's included in reputable websites as a valid alternate name. Are you worried that Lady Gaga's article isn't at her proper name of Stefani Germanotta? And what about how Mercury (element) includes alternate, but unofficial names in the top of the lede? HiLo48, your argument doesn't make when you look at other articles on Wikipedia, and I really don't understand why you are so stonewalled over this. It is simply including a popular alternate name, an idea that is allowed on Wikipedia. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
        • Yes, we do think that. We thought it last year, and you know that, because we’ve been over all of this before. I know you don’t agree, but if you don’t have anything new to add, besides another rehashing of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, I don’t see what we’re talking about. We were willing to compromise last year, and now it’s looking like the old “give ‘em an inch and they’ll take a mile” thing I expected to see, and right on schedule for the anniversary, as predicted. This time next year you’ll be wanting to rename the whole article. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 14:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
          • Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia because we're well-rounded and show different viewpoints. I wholly disagree with renaming this article, as "Hurricane Sandy" is the more popular title. As for what's new, as I said before, we're further removed from the event, and time has shown "Superstorm Sandy" as a valid alternative. I don't see why this is controversial. It's a name used by FEMA, NWS, CNN, etc. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
            • You haven't shown us anything to suggest it's a more valid alternative than it was last year. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 15:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
              • Several sources I provided are from a few days ago, from very reputable sources. It shows it's a lasting alternative name. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
                • I don't think they are reputable (at least, not for this purpose). And I don't think a year (considerably less than a year, as a matter of fact) is any indication of longevity. People had plenty of sources last year, and we didn't care then either. We're not saying nobody ever used it; we're saying it's meaningless and shouldn't be used here. It's no different than any of the other nicknames given to it, which at another time almost everyone—including Knolwedgekid and TornadoLGS—agreed "SHOULD NOT be in the lede" (not my emphasis). Aside from the fact that the word is unscientific and undefined, it also gives undue weight to a fringe theory that this was some kind of new weather, and implicit support of political issues regarding climate change. It's not just a nickname, it's a political coat rack. I'm pretty sure you're well aware of that, or you wouldn't still be pushing for it all this time later. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 16:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
                  • Wait a minute, you think FEMA and the NWS aren't reputable in this case? They are both products of the United States federal government! I'm sorry, but if you don't think they provide clarity that the name isn't meaningless, then I don't think I'd ever be able to convince you otherwise then. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
                  • Please read WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE, you are basing your argument on a discussion that is many months old. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
                    • Wait a minute, you think FEMA is in charge of naming storms? I'm pretty sure you actually don't think that at all. And, from the NWS site you linked:

                      The information on National Weather Service (NWS) Web pages are in the public domain, unless specifically noted otherwise, and may be used without charge for any lawful purpose so long as you do not: 1) claim it is your own (e.g., by claiming copyright for NWS information -- see below), 2) use it in a manner that implies an endorsement or affiliation with NOAA/NWS, or 3) modify its content and then present it as official government material.

                      The contents of that website do not constitute NWS policy. It is a glorified blog, not a reliable source for what your purpose. Given your focus of work at Wikipedia, not to mention the fact that you are an administrator, I can't believe I have to explain all this to you. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 17:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I never said FEMA was in charge of naming storms. That is delegated to the National Hurricane Center. But when it comes to alternate names (and I cannot emphasize enough that I'm talking only about an alternate name, not about changing the name of the whole article), they are certainly a reputable source, as are the NWS (I can't believe you would call them a glorified blog, considering the reports are written by experts). You are saying that the name "Superstorm" is meaningless, but the fact it is widely used by the NWS has to mean something. But if that isn't enough, then I have more. NOAA here has the name "Superstorm" in big bold font. The President of the United States even calls it "Superstorm Sandy" in his State of the Union. How can you keep arguing it is a junk term that doesn't belong in the first sentence? It is ludicrous. And for what it's worth, given your last sentence, you might value my opinion a bit, considering I have been an editor for eight years and an administrator for five. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I've been an editor for eight years and an admin for six. I don't see what that has to do with anything. I'm here to talk about science and weather, not measure dicks. I'd say I've given as much respect to your opinions as you've given mine.

I'll tell you what, though: You show me any peer-reviewed scientific journal (take your pick) that specifically defines what a superstorm is, and I'm out. Seriously, that's all you have to do. Swear to god. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 19:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I realize that these don't specifically define what a superstorm is, but these two articles in Weather as published by the Royal Meteorological Society might be relevant.Jason Rees (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

And I realize I missed a part of this. For what it's worth, Kafziel, I put my editing time in response to your comment - Given your focus of work at Wikipedia, not to mention the fact that you are an administrator, I can't believe I have to explain all this to you. That was a little condescending, as I am primarily a hurricane editor. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed compromise I suggest inserting something like this (plus a cite or two) between the first and second sentences of existing lead text

"Populsar media dubbed it 'Superstorm Sandy' and that nickname became sufficiently popular that even the USA's FEMA used it."

Such an approach acknowledges RSs that use the nickname, but explicitly says its just a popular alternate, not science terminology.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I am adding to my italicized proposal above (after several said 'support' below) so it ends... "even the USA's FEMA and NOAA have used it."

FEMA used it days after the event, and 6 months after, and even 12 months after.

At least one of NOAAs uses is here

I agree the text should refer to it as a "nickname" which should satisfy the comprise-capable techjargon purists among us. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

No. FEMA didn't use it. People use words, not organisations. Perhaps one person at FEMA was caught up in the hype. That doesn't make superstorm an acceptable and meaningful word. Without a proper definition, we shouldn't use it. HiLo48 (talk) 11:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes FEMA has used it - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Support. I am having trouble trying understanding why some of you guys have such a problem with this. FEMA and NWS are about as reliable and reputable as it gets when we are talking about weather events, including tropical cyclones. Also, does the term "superstorm" really have to be defined? There is a disambiguation about the term superstorm, FYI.--12george1 (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Support the addition of "Hurricane Sandy (unofficially known as Superstorm Sandy) was the deadliest and most destructive hurricane of the 2012 Atlantic hurricane season" per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:LASTING, I do not see any policy based arguments here for it's exclusion other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT comments, like it or not the wording "Superstorm Sandy" is used in a lot of reliable sources and we are not even talking about a title change here (jeez...). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

support I fail to see any distinction between the use of "Superstorm Sandy" and other nicknames for storms such as the "Long Island Express" and "Yankee Clipper" for the 1938 New England hurricane or "Snowmageddon" for the February 5–6, 2010 North American blizzard. "Superstorm Sandy" is clearly not an appropriate title for the article, but I see no reason in policy nor precedent for excluding it as a bolded nickname. Sailsbystars (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Support. Hype or not, and technical term or not this nickname is widely used and continues to be used. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Support per my above comment and the statements of others. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

If the populists here want to move away from quality writing and mention superstorm, please at least qualify it as not a real meteorological word with any defined meaning. HiLo48 (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The italicized proposal above attempted to do that with the word "dubbed" and "nickname". Are you saying that effort was insufficient and if so are you proposing a tweak to the wording? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

So if the term is never properly defined in a weather journal, you're not going to drop this? The Bureau of American Meteorological Society gives the name "Superstorm Sandy", but in a way that reflects it's not an official name... exactly what I'm proposing for the article. The exact quote is

"Hurricane Sandy — more commonly referred to in the media as “Superstorm” Sandy"

It's plain as day that it's a well-known term. As for a definition, I'm not sure how likely that'll be, since it's a description more than anything. An article in Oceanography from March 2013 says "Sandy converged with an extra-tropical cyclone, a developing early “winter” nor’easter, that transformed it from a weakening late-October hurricane/tropical storm into an extra-tropical hybrid superstorm. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem with that is that it sounds like a proper meteorological term with some sort of formal meaning. It's not, and we must make it clear that it's not. HiLo48 (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Hurricanehink. Superstorm Sandy is a common enough name that it should be listed as an alternate in the first sentence. Whether or not it is an "official" name is irrelevant, otherwise we would never have to have discussions about alternate (a.k.a. unofficial) names. To argue that point is analogous to arguing that common nicknames for people should also not be included. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Not the same thing. Everyone knows that people have their formal, given names, and often nicknames as well. And they know that the nicknames cannot be used in formal situations. I am, however, sadly convinced that some people, even some contributing to this thread, think that superstorm has begun to have some official, formal meaning. It hasn't. And we must make that 100% clear. HiLo48 (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I've heard meteorologists use it in private and in public. I would think that adding the caveat "unofficially nicknamed 'Superstorm Sandy'" would be appropriate. I don't know where you're getting the idea that people are arguing that "Superstorm Sandy" is an official, formal name. I haven't made that argument. I'm not understanding what the harm is in adding an unofficial nickname, and noting it as such. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, maybe it could be there, with "unofficial nickname" as the qualifier. It still irks an awful lot. We must remember that the only reason it exists is the same reason headline writers use awful puns. It was obvious alliteration. Nothing more. And we generally don't repeat the headline writers' awful puns in Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 22:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The fact that it "irks" you really isn't a compelling reason to not do it. Plenty of the things in the Wikipedia MOS bug me too, but we stick to them. We generally don't repeat those awful puns because they generally don't catch on to be popular a year after the event happened. Here, the case is different.

I'd say the harm is that you're not the only one reading this article, Inks. Not everyone does understand the distinction. You only have to look to the top of this very discussion to see an editor suggesting that the entire article be moved to "Superstorm Sandy". Despite that for the last year it has specifically said that the media made up that nickname, he still thinks that’s the most appropriate name. If a somewhat experienced editor is that ignorant, how much more so all the schoolchildren who will be using this as a reference tool? Not all of those people will give you the opportunity to correct them, as was done in this case. Is it really better to err on the side of pop culture? To what end?

That's what I feel we stand to lose. Can you tell me what is gained by having it in bold face? The old argument a year ago was that it would let people know they're at the right article; the compromise was, okay, if it's really that confusing, we'll have it in the lede section. So, has there been a rash of complaints from confused readers since then? Are we afraid of offending the hurricane by not including her nickname? What is the reason? Who is served by adding it? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 22:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you cease with the personal attacks please? Having the name in the lead harms nobody and as I have said before there are no policies to exclude it, but there are policies that support including it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

There are no personal attacks here. Did you not propose moving the page? Were you not corrected? Do you not think there are countless other people out there less knowledgeable than you? These are facts, not attacks. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 22:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Calling out an editor who you think is ignorant just to prove something I see as in bad faith and a personal attack towards me, I had no idea what name was used more in sources but have been hearing the name Superstorm thrown out a lot, notice I did not try to continue with my effort for a title change and just left it as that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

You called yourself out, man. I didn't even use your name. As you say, you "had no idea" - and that is the exact definition of ignorance. I used it as a fact, not as an insult. My point is that lots and lots of other people also have no idea, and they are looking to us to make it clear. Putting the wrong name in bold face, in the first sentence, is not a step in the right direction. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 22:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

What is gained is that people know they are at the right article, and know that that is a common nickname. I have not advocated that the article be moved to Superstorm Sandy, so there still is a distinction, because I have proposed keeping the page the same. I see no harm that will come to the schoolchildren who use this site as a reference tool if they know that an unofficial nickname for the storm was "Superstorm Sandy". I'm trying to engage in a serious discussion and you're talking about harming schoolchildren by telling them that an unofficial name for the storm was "Superstorm Sandy" and referencing "pop culture". It is more than just the side of "pop culture" that we are talking about here. Major media outlets and even governmental organizations have used the name. I have given you reasons that the name should be included, and you seem to be ignoring them. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not that I'm ignoring your answers, it's just that you haven't added a single new thing to the discussion. I mean, really: You're telling me your reason "is that people know they are at the right article, and know that that is a common nickname", which is what I just said was the old argument that we already compromised on last year. The article already does say that it's an unofficial nickname - it just doesn't say it in bold font in the first sentence. So it's dishonest to say that this is about information; this is about wiki formatting, and whether the word should be in quotes or bold face. It's about the members of Wikipedia's Hurricane Pop Culture Fan Club getting their way, since they didn't last year.

So I repeat my request from earlier today: Show me a peer-reviewed scientific journal that specifically defines what a superstorm even is, and I'm out. So far, nobody has. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 04:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

And you have yet to rebut why the arguments from last year are not valid. There's no need to get adversarial and resort to childish tactics talking about pop culture fan clubs. This certainly isn't about getting my way because I didn't last year. Up until about 2 minutes ago, I didn't even remember if I had participated in the discussion last year, and I certainly didn't remember for sure what position I had taken (although it was the exact same position, so at least my internal logic is consistent). I am trying to have an adult conversation about the actual issues, and I expect the same from other users, especially an administrator. It is about information, at least that's why I'm arguing for it. I don't really understand how you can tell me that I am being dishonest about what I'm thinking, since you, quite frankly, don't have the slightest clue what I'm thinking since you are not me. As for your second question, what does that have anything to do with the issue? I am not arguing that this should be included because peer-reviewed journals talk about it; I am arguing that it should be included because it was a common nickname and bolded so that people can easily and quickly identify that they have arrived at the correct article. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The arguments from last year were valid - that's why the term is in the lede section at all. That was the compromise last year, and now everyone is back to push for more. But there's nothing new, so there's no reason to do anything different than we already did. Do you have evidence of anyone being confused about whether or not they reached the right article? Nope. You all just didn't get your way last year, so you'll just wait a while and most of the opposition will have moved on to other things. I can tell you what you're thinking because I've seen it a million times before. It can't possibly be about content, because the content is already there. You just want it in bold face. That's formatting. But the fact is, we don't have to put in bold face every possible redirect, so that everyone who types in "Frankenstorm" or "Snoreastercane" can quickly and easily tell they've arrived at the correct page. There's a whole section about the nicknames, and that should suffice. As I've already said once in this discussion, "superstorm" is a politically charged term implying that climate change has produced a new kind of weather. If we can't even define what a superstorm is, we shouldn't be following the tabloids in calling it that. For all the same reasons you don't think the article title should be changed, I don't think the lede sentence should be changed. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 11:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, well if you're at the point that you think that you're a mind-reader, I think further discussion about topics of science is a lost cause. If at some point you've decided to be civil and no longer think you're a psychic, I might be open to actually discussing the substantial issues of the debate here, but on procedural grounds, I'm moving on, because I'm not going to waste my time trying to reason with someone who thinks he knows how to read minds--that's just a waste of time and bandwidth. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

If that's all you got from what I said, then it's probably just as well. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 15:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, let's not get into a mass edit war over this all of a sudden. I've restored the page to its original pre-discussion form that does not include Superstorm Sandy in the first sentence and does not bold "Superstorm Sandy" in the lead. Let's keep it that way until this discussion is over. There's no point making changes back and forth every time someone thinks his side is "winning". Inks.LWC (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'd just like to drop by with my suggested wording. At this point I think it should be in the first sentence, due to its widespread usage. However, in order to tackle the issue of it being 'not scientifically accurate' (which, despite this, government organizations continue to use 'Superstorm Sandy', though to give credit where credit is due they do make note that it is not an entirely new subset of storms), I'd like to suggest "Hurricane Sandy (also unofficially referred to as Superstorm Sandy)..." as the first sentence of the article. This is consistent with the bolding of Winter Storm Nemo in February 2013 nor'easter. I decided to use 'also unofficially referred to as' instead of 'also known as' because Sandy is not, by definition, a superstorm. Because there is no finite definition for a superstorm and it's completely arbitrary to the individual whether it was a superstorm or not. Instead, 'referred to as' indicates that it is called as such, but it's not necessarily the 'scientifically accurate' naming. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 23:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • That's what I've supported to all along. I agree with that. Saying "unofficial" should give us leeway. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
    • While I almost think this discussion beats a dead horse, I maintain my position firmly on this issue. "The contents of that website do not constitute NWS policy. It is a glorified blog, not a reliable source for what your purpose." is blatantly false. FEMA is not even close to a blog and is a United States agency. Is it responsible for naming storms? No. Is it the most common name? Actually a google search check says no. But it's enough to be mention in the lead? Yes. In boldface? Sure, why not. It's an alterante name. As long as if we not it's unofficial, IMO we're fine. We are not "Putting the wrong name in bold face" as Hurricane Sandy better stay boldfaced. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
      • So you think I made up the quote from the NWS website, that says no part of the website is to be construed as representing NWS policy? All you have to do is look it up yourself. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 04:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
        • You made up the part that it's a glorified blog. NWS is a reliable source, as is FEMA, etc. Can I ask you what your objection is to TheAustinMan's writing? I think it accurately handles the situation, and can resolve much more talk page discussion. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
          • TheAustinMan's suggestion is exactly the same as what we've been talking about all along. You said so yourself.[1] So if what he suggested is exactly the same thing we've been talking about this whole time, and I wasn't okay with it up there, why would I be okay with it now? My objection is that Hurricane Sandy has lots of meaningless, b.s. nicknames completely made up by a frantic media trying to be clever. There's no reason to choose this particular one, out of all the others, and say that it has to go not just in the lede, but in bold face and in the very first sentence. Yes, it's more common than some of the others. It was more common last year, too. Nothing has changed. I was fine with the compromise last year (which is the current version I'm defending) but this is just too much. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 13:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
            • What has changed is the amount of time. It has been about a year, and "Superstorm Sandy" (which, based on the variety and quality of sources such as FEMA, NOAA, NWS, is not meaningless) is still a very popular alternative. It's not just more common, it's the most common. How is this too much? As shown elsewhere, we regularly add unofficial nicknames for storms, such as February 2013 nor'easter (AKA "Winter Storm Nemo"), 2011 Halloween nor'easter (AKA "Snowtober"), and February 25–27, 2010 North American blizzard (AKA "Snowicane"). It's not anything new on Wikipedia to include an alternate name. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
              • The difference between those and this is that: Aside from the fact that the word is unscientific and undefined, it also gives undue weight to a fringe theory that this was some kind of new weather, and implicit support of political issues regarding climate change. It's not just a nickname, it's a political coat rack. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 14:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
                • It's a nickname. It has nothing to do with global warming. It's because the media likes alliteration, and as a result, the nickname caught on. Republican Governor Christie called it Superstorm, Obama called it Superstorm. If you want political, then check out the STRONG Act, a bill proposed in the Senate cosponsored by Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand and Republican Roger Wicker! It's not just a nickname, it's a popular alternative name for the event, used by democrats and republicans. Nothing mischievous, just a popular name. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
                  • I don't see how that disproves my point at all - you're just giving examples of exactly what I'm talking about. Chris Christie = politician looking for money. Barack Obama = politician looking for money. STRONG Act (I'm familiar with it - Gillibrand is my senator) = politicians looking for money. It's exactly what I'm talking about. It has been claimed to have been a new kind of super storm caused by global warming; that's a whole other section that used to be in the article (as you know) and there is still mention of it in the "media" section. It's right there. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 17:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
                    • What does the fact that Christie or Obama are looking for money have to do with anything? Bottom line is that it is commonly referred to as Supertstorm Sandy. So, let's avoid WP:POV here and mention both names in the lead. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 21:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

POLL regarding mention of 'Superstorm Sandy' nickname in article

• Option A Insert after the first sentence:

"Popular media dubbed it 'Superstorm Sandy', and although there is no technical definition of a superstorm, that nickname became sufficiently popular that even the USA's FEMA and NOAA have used it. (STILL TO DO: format and insert the following RSs)"

FEMA days after

FEMA 6 months after

FEMA 12 months after

NOAAs used it too

• Option B Insert in first sentence "(unofficially nicknamed "Superstorm Sandy")"
• Option C Make no mention of "superstorm" anywhere in article (provide reasons, but per WP:DISRUPT please omit reasons based on your personal opinion)
• Option D OK to say "superstorm" in body but not in lead (provide details what you think it should say)
• Option E Something else (describe)
• Option F Retain the sentence at the end of Lead paragraph 1 at time this poll was posted, for example in this version.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

For new editors... although the poll sort of looks like a vote that is not what it is. Wikipedia treats polls such as these as a way of organizing discussion of the principles and the strength of the reasons underlying editors' viewpoints. It is not a majority rule voting process. As it says in WP:Consensus "...consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting. Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight."

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Option A #1, B #2, F #3 I favor mention of the nickname because it appears - like it or not - in abundant RSs. I also favor use of the nickname because as a nickname it has been used by substantive RSs such as FEMA and NOAA. I favor option A because it acknowledges such use and explicitly says such use is the use of a nickname. Finally, I like A because the last point hopefully satisfies technical jargon purists by explicitly saying "nickname". But I could as easily live with option 2. Note that my reason is devoid of any expression of my personal like or dislike of this state of affairs. The RSs use it, and that's where strong arguments - the ones that matter when consensus is ultimately measured - must focus. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• Option B, but say "unofficial known as" instead of nicknamed. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting; It would help to have a little elaboration. I acknowledge your first choice is B and you said nothing about A....could you live with A to form a compromise? Why "unofficially known as" instead of "unofficially nicknamed"? Could you live with "nicknamed" to form a compromise? Thanks in advance for elaborating.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Nicknamed works for B, but I thought it better to avoid calling it a "nickname". I don't prefer A. That's more or less what we have now. B is the simplest, and brings it in line with other similar articles with alternative names. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Dope slap! I overlooked the end of paragraph 1 in existing text, and added an option to keep that way of addressing this issue (see newly added option F in the poll) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• A or F. Myriad related comments are above. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 17:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• Option B We have had 5 editors support the original proposal I do not know why we are making this more complex than it needs to be. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Because this format reduces people willing to keep arguing on basis of "Like" and "DontLike"; and when eds do so, those weak arguments leap off the page; and for both reasons this approach makes it really easy on whatever uninvolved ed or admin we ask to determine the consensus. Plus, it gets closed in a colored box and logged in the archives, making it harder for warriors to kick it open again without a solid reason why consensus should be re-evaluated. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Like it being almost the anniversary. Something really solid like that. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 21:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Option B with Option A with some tweaks as my second choice. Nickname makes it clear that it is not an official name. But I do like the idea of noting that superstorm is not a scientific term. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • We could add a note (kinda like a reference) next to Superstorm Sandy, as a compromise? Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 21:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Do we have a source about a "superstorm" not being scientific? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• Option B, per numerous comments by other users in the above discussion. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• Option B just simpler than option A overall. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 21:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• Option B per above...and past...discussion. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• Option A or F. I have been aware of reams of discussion about the word superstorm here for some time, and I never could understand why it was such a big deal. I think I've got it now: In the US, climate change is still seen as a political issue rather than a scientific fact - everyone amazingly feels that they are free to choose whether to 'believe' in it, promote it, or deny it, on the basis of their political preferences. Therefore, it seems, the idea here on this article is that if you want to 'promote' climate change, you call this hurricane a 'superstorm', and pretend that science has stated that all storms will be like this from now on. (Or more likely, you pretend that others are doing that, as a strawman argument). This is nonsense, but if this thinking is indeed widespread in the US then we should not be discussing a little bit of bold text here or there, but a proper section that deals with the question in detail from top to bottom. If it is widespread, there must be references available by now that discuss the issue, the politics, the misinformation, and the strawmen. If the issue is not widespread, then we hardly need to mention it here. I have just tagged a reference that I believe is being misused in the article: If we are going to discuss the politicisation of terms, we need references that discuss the politicisation of terms, not references that use terms, while we, in Wikipedia's own voice, politicise them ourselves. --Nigelj (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • • How does calling something a "superstorm" have any connection with global warming? I majorly agree with the last tidbit, I don't think we should define what a superstorm is unless we get a good source. Despite this, given the widespread useage of the name "Superstorm Sandy", I feel it's best to go with option B since that's what it was called in the media, and to a lesser extent FEMA and NWS. FTR, the term "superstorm" has been used before Sandy (i.e. 2011 Bering Sea superstorm,). YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
      • The use of the term superstorm - when applied to such familiar events as hurricanes - implies that there is something new and extraordinary about such events. Hurricanes, typhoons, cyclones are naturally occurring events that are familiar to any student of climate. We can find reports of such storms going back hundreds of years. I ask why are some editors going to such lengths and expending so much passion over promoting a term that is unofficial and imprecise - when we have the perfectly good word "hurricane" available to describe the event. Such new zeal and passion can only come from a motive that is less than the coldly objective desire to lay down facts that is the hallmark of good science. And good encyclopaedias. --Pete (talk) 19:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
        • I am in no way shape thinking the name Hurricane Sandy from the lead should be removed. I just think the easiest and most simplest way to mention it in the lead is Option B. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
          • It's already right there in the lead. Has been for months. There seems to be next to no support for deleting it. --Pete (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see any reason to open up the huge can of worms that climate change can bring to this type of simple discussion. The name of this storm has nothing to do whatsoever with "impling that there is something new and extraordinary about such events". Whether this storm should be called a "Superstorm" or not (this re-direct has apparently existed for a while now BTW) should have nothing to do with one's opinion of climate change. Guy1890 (talk) 02:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• Option B with "Superstorm Sandy" bolded, per the reasons I have outlined above. Adding the unofficial name to the first sentence and bolding it makes it clear to people who reach this page that what the media dubbed "Superstorm Sandy" is the same thing as Hurricane Sandy. It is a way to enable readers to quickly understand that they have reached the right page by drawing their attention to the bolded name. It also educationally provides readers with a common unofficial name that was given to the storm. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• Option F. I thought that was a good compromise last year, and nothing has happened to change my mind. Sure, even government agencies use the nickname, but not in the context of scientific description and classification. The main emphasis in these articles on hurricanes is meteorological science, is it not? It's fine to have the other stuff about the social and economic impact, the treatment by the media, and so on, but overemphasizing "Superstorm" closer to the beginning, even acknowledged as a nickname, suggests some kind of meteorological importance that the term does not warrant. I agree with Kafziel that the term has no scientific meaning. Much weaker second choice would be a modification of Option B, that is, without the "unofficially". Is there such a thing as an official nickname? Seems redundant to me. --Alan W (talk) 01:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you point me to the Wikipedia policy that states nicknames are meant to be strictly scientific as opposed to descriptive of a said event? TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

There doesn't have to be a policy. There's no policy that says all nicknames have to be bold or in the first sentence, either. That's why we're talking here. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 03:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

But we have a policy in WP:TITLE that says "By the design of Wikipedia's software, an article can only have one title. When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph." --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

And it is. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 11:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Right. And, TropicalAnalystwx13, to clarify, I'm not saying that the nickname's being unscientific means we shouldn't mention it at all, just that it should get much less weight than the name under which Sandy is classified by meteorology. We're not excluding any of the nicknames, which are even discussed in a section of their own. It's a matter of balance, which is why I think that what we settled on last year, after all that debate, is just about right. --Alan W (talk) 01:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I think alternate nicknames are better suited in the lead than in the body. I think the simplest way to do it is mention it in the first sentence and not mention it again. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Netural - It is interesting to note from my stand point as a WPTC member not giving a crap about this debate, that people who id associate with WPTC who are favouring option B, while people not really associated with WPTC are going for Option A or F. This could be because WPTC used to regularly note the unofficial names of Pacific Typhoons in the same way as Option B, which is also interesting since a few people have encouraged me not to put the unofficial names in bold or in the lead.Jason Rees (talk) 03:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) *Option B with Options A/F as reasonable compromises – I had recommended a phrasing similar to Option B earlier in this discussion, reasons for that can be found above. However, Options A and F I find to be reasonable compromises and I would be fine with these two options as well. On a normal basis I would disagree with the citations for option A (since it's an A) but it's fine since this is a major topic of discussion and satisfies WP:CITELEAD. Option F I am fine with, though I feel that Option B is the optimal option. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 02:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Can I ask if this idea works for anyone?

Hurricane Sandy (also unofficially known as Superstorm Sandy)...

Notes

The exact text for what's in the note can be tweaked, but if we add a note, such as what I proposed, it would provide both the alternative name, as well as an explanation of why the alt name isn't official. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't really see the need in it. Stating the the title is unofficial as suggested should suit just fine. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I still prefer Option F. But if we go with Option B, I don't see any harm in the footnote, and with some tweaking it would have the benefit of allowing clarification and explanation, reinforcing the fact that "Superstorm Sandy" is just a nickname, more persistent than any others, used by news media and government officials and organizations—all without bloating the beginning of the lead, which should be as concise as possible. --Alan W (talk) 02:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• Option E It seems reasonable for me to mention superstorm only in conjunction with the ceasement of hurricane warnings by the NHC because of that measure only enabled the press to nickname the storm a superstorm. It also should be mentioned that there is no such thing as a superstorm in meteorology (the sentence in option A) at this place of the article, and therefore the dab page Super storm IMO is rather a cfd than to be kept. I strongly oppose option A because of the prominent place and following further distribution of the wrong term and for the same reason I also do not like options B and F due to their IMO unsufficient explanation why superstorm is a wrong term. --Matthiasb (talk) 09:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

"It seems reasonable for me to mention superstorm only in conjunction with the ceasement of hurricane warnings by the NHC because of that measure only enabled the press to nickname the storm a superstorm"...but that's not what really happened. The "Superstorm" moniker was basically only added after the storm impacted the Mid-Atlantic coast. The end of hurricane warnings was a controversial aspect of the official NWS response to this event though. "It also should be mentioned that there is no such thing as a superstorm in meteorology"...sure there is, but it is a rarely-used term for sure. Guy1890 (talk) 01:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• Option F. Always good to get more eyes on a meaty question. The storm was a hurricane, simple as that. Calling it a "superstorm" is like the various snowmageddon and snowpocalypses we've seen over the past few years, whenever something out of the ordinary comes along. Unless some official source defines a new "superstorm" category, I can't see any reason to give a nickname any more authority than it currently enjoys. --Pete (talk) 09:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

But by your logic, we should include it, since we include the name "Snowicane" in February 25–27, 2010 North American blizzard and "Snowmageddon" in February 5–6, 2010 North American blizzard. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't logically follow at all. Just because WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, that doesn't mean we have to do the same thing here. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 17:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

This debate is a moot point which got started, I think, with an incorrect perception of the !vote at the top of our indent series.... Option F is a !vote to continue using "superstorm" the way it was being used when the poll was first posted. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any confusion. Skyring thinks it should stay as is. I agree. Hink doesn't. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 17:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

No, Hurricanehink. Those two events don't have a perfectly good name like this one does. I think the existing reference, at the end of the lead para, is just fine. Thanks for pointing them out, however. If you could find dozens of hurricanes, cyclones and typhoons with prominent alternate names, that might guide my opinion, but I suspect that you cannot, otherwise you would have? By your logic. --Pete (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Since 1963 on average 20 typhoons a year are given "prominent alternate names."Jason Rees (talk) 8:30 pm, Today (UTC+1)

Such as...? --Pete (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Take your pick since any typhoon that strikes the Philippines will 9/10 have a second name eg: Typhoon Fengshen is commonly known as Frank, Tropical Storm Washi is commonly known as Sendong, Ketsana/Parma 2009 -> Pepeng and Ondoy.Jason Rees (talk) 20:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration sounds reasonably official to me. The same storm known by two different names: Fengshen and Frank by two different nations. Does that match the situation we're talking about here? Sandy is known by another name? Peter, Jason, or Frank, maybe? --Pete (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

They're only official for matters of their own country and dealing with notices and information for their public, which is just like what FEMA does in the US. The official agency (Japan Meteorological Organization) will not use their alternative name, just like the NHC won't use the unofficial "superstorm name". It's actually a good comparison, thanks Jason for bringing it up. Indeed, Wikipedia mentions both the unofficial name and the official one, which is what we would do in option B with Sandy, mention the official name "Hurricane Sandy" and the unofficial but-still-used-by-FEMA-and-others "Superstorm Sandy". --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding PASAGA, it's not a RMSC, and does not official monitor WPAC storms. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I thank Hink for bringing this up. We do list storms by other names, correct. If he would respond to my point, that would also be useful. Does Sandy have another name? --Pete (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Hurricane Sandy has another name called "Superstorm Sandy" :P YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of storms, the pub at Eumundi used to have a bucket on the bar. A stranger would come in on a blazing hot day, look at the bucket in puzzlement and ask the barman what it was for. "To catch the drips." As we see here. Right. So "Sandy"=="Sandy" and "Superstorm"=="Hurricane". I can see that we are really catering for all levels of readership with material like this. Perhaps it would be better to say that "Superstorm Sandy" is an informal name for "Hurricane Sandy"? We say as much. Have done for many months. I just can't see why anyone would want to change our factual article to give an unofficial, informal, ill-defined name equal billing with the actual official name. Is there some actual reason for this besides personal opinion, or are we forgetting that we are writing an encyclopaedia to inform readers rather than entertain them? --Pete (talk) 04:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

That's what Option B is saying! The proposed wording "(unofficially nicknamed "Superstorm Sandy")" does imply that it is "unofficial, informal, ill-defined ". To say it was unofficially known as "Superstorm Sandy" is not infactual at all. Why? Because it was unofficially known as a Superstorm in the media. We have to be neutral and mention both what the storm was offically known as an it's widely known unofficial name. Option B does not imply a "Superstorm"=="Hurricane". YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

So what's your exact opposition to the current wording: "The severe and widespread damage the storm caused in the United States, as well as its unusual merge with a frontal system, resulted in the nicknaming of the hurricane by the media and several organizations of the U.S. government "Superstorm Sandy" "? That looks fine to me. --Pete (talk) 00:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Since it's already in the lede, what's your opposition to the proposal to move the common alternate name up to the first sentence? The proposal is simply to move it to the first sentence, where it can inform other users of a viable alternate name, just like we do in other articles. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

If you don't want to answer my question, that's fine. I was seriously interested, but hey. To answer this question, I think that putting it in the first sentence (and bolding it) gives too much prominence to a nickname. Do we treat other hurricanes in such a fashion? We do not. If hurricanes have different official names and there may be some confusion, we list alternate official names and their sources. For example, our articles on Pacific typhoons like this one. Fengshen and Frank. Thelma and Uring. Washi and Sendong. But there is unlikely to be any such confusion in this case. It's "Sandy" everywhere. You are proposing we do something quite new and different, and yet you misleadingly imply above that we already do this, "just like we do in other articles". You are wrong. --Pete (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, there is the 1991 Perfect Storm, which is an unofficial name popularized in the media and that mentions other popular titles in the lead. That's what I'm talking about doing it elsewhere. That was a hurricane too, btw. I think you're getting too strung up on the term "hurricane". Hurricanes are basically a generic term for Atlantic tropical cyclones (see Atlantic hurricane season and National Hurricane Center. Did you know Sandy was also officially known as Tropical Storm Sandy, Tropical Depression 18, and Post-Tropical Cyclone Sandy, all by the NHC. The 1928 Okeechobee hurricane also mentions a popular alternate title in Puerto Rico. My opposition to the current wording is that the 2nd most popular name for the event is at the end of the first paragraph, when usually such popular names are mentioned right away. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

1991 Perfect Storm and Hurricane Grace have two different names. It is not "Sandy" and "Sandy", which is the case here. Could we follow this line, please? I'd like to see where your original comment about "logic" goes. --Pete (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

As for getting wrapped around the axles about the term "hurricane", I don't worry too much about terminology. They are cyclones where I come from, but essentially the same phenomenon. Did you know Sandy was also officially known as Tropical Storm Sandy, Tropical Depression 18, and Post-Tropical Cyclone Sandy, all by the NHC, you say, but we do not mention these alternate official names in this - or any other - article. Why not? Because the name of the thing doesn't change. As you note, it's all Sandy, all the time. --Pete (talk) 21:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

My qualm with "The severe and widespread damage the storm caused in the United States, as well as its unusual merge with a frontal system, resulted in the nicknaming of the hurricane by the media and several organizations of the U.S. government "Superstorm Sandy" " is that it is too long and complicated and goes into too much detail for a lead. Hence, I prefer "(unofficially nicknamed "Superstorm Sandy")". YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 21:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

So WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT. I don't either, honestly. I'd prefer "The severe and widespread damage the storm caused in the United States, as well as its unusual merge with a frontal system, eventually resulted in the nickname 'Superstorm Sandy'." Further detail on the various nicknames is in its own section, in the body, where it belongs. But we could discuss that later.

What I don't get is all this stuff about simplicity. Did a bunch of editors make a wrong turn at the Simple English article? We don't have to cater to the lowest possible intellect. If reading a paragraph or, in fact, one long sentence, is too much work for some readers, then maybe they'd do better with an audio version. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 21:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

YE, you've mentioned the simplicity aspect several times on this page and it is one to which I am sympathetic. Clear and simple beats long and complex, so long as we don't lose information. However, I don't see why we should mention an unofficial and irregular term in the first sentence. The name is the same - Sandy - but the term is not, and there seems to be no precedent for it. I like consistency in an encyclopaedia, where there are rules and policies to guide us all. --Pete (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

We should add the unofficial term in the first sentence because it's a well-known alternative (but not so common that it should be the article title, no one is arguing that). I don't get why you're harping so much over both of them being named Sandy. If the other one was "October Superstorm", and that was as well-known in the media, I'd be in favor of using that just as much as the current one. Going back to an earlier point, the reason we also don't mention "Post-Tropical Cyclone Sandy" in the lead is because it's not well-known. On WP, we don't always go with what's official and regular, just by what's popular, like Snowmageddon and Cyclone Bawbag. There aren't any other good examples in tropical cyclone articles because Sandy was a pretty rare storm. Usually they just fizzle out when they become extratropical. You like consistency? So do I, which is why it's good to include a very popular alternate designation (I'll avoid saying alternate name since you are stuck on both of them mentioning Sandy); again, see Snowmageddon, Cyclone Bawbag, etc. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm following up on your comment But by your logic, we should include it… above. While I appreciate your guess, you actually got "my logic" wrong, because the official designation and the nickname both included the name Sandy, and it's the "Superstorm Sandy" I'm questioning, as if there is some official list of superstorms with various names that people may consult for more information. Superstorm Katrina, Superstorm Hugo and so on. Hurricane Bawbag is a good example of one storm with two different names - the other being Friedhelm. We put the English name first, this being the English Wikipedia. On that note, I'm glad of your experience in this area, dredging up examples of other articles, but again Option B above seems to be breaking new wind, as it were. --Pete (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hurricanehink, you wrote: "Since it's already in the lede, what's your opposition to the proposal to move the common alternate name up to the first sentence?" This is maybe just a variant of what some others are answering, and what I've said already, but it can bear re-emphasis. There is a major reason why we shouldn't move it, boldfaced, up to the first sentence: that position gives the nickname much too much weight. Just mentioning it so early suggests some quasi-official sanctioning of the nickname. Sure, we could write, "Hurricane Sandy (also unofficially given many names of no scientific standing, of which one, Superstorm Sandy, has persisted longer in popular usage than any other nickname)...." But of course nobody would accept stuffing all that into the first sentence. Yet it's the only way we could mention it so early without being misleading. Leaving "Superstorm Sandy" where it is now lets us add a bit of explanation, as well as avoiding overweighting its importance or seeming to imply some official approval. --Alan W (talk) 01:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that is 'also unofficially given many names of no scientific standing,...' would imply that there is a whole pool of unscientific names to choose from. However, 'Superstorm Sandy' is the only prevalent 'media' term out there. Sure, someone might have called it 'The Big One' or something, but we aren't catering to the lowest common denominator. That being said, I like Hurricanehink's footnote suggestion and I think that would be perfectly fine. Again, that being said, I would like to bring up a discussion (in this case a string of discussions) resulting from the existence of an 'official' name and a popular 'media' name in which the 'media' name, unlike the examples that have already been brought up here, was pretty much thrown out of the article all together – the April 25–28, 2011 tornado outbreak. Looking at the talk page archives, one would see that the idea to move/introduce 2011 Super Outbreak or a derivative of that into the article was brought up not one but five times (three in a row). One ought to look at that case example, as well as the other examples brought up in which the 'media' name ended up prominent within the article. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 02:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

(reply to Alan W) How is saying "(unofficial known as Superstorm Sandy)" in anyway misleading? It's an unofficial name, and it's known as that. There's nothing biased about that statement. It's a well-known term to describe the event. And, if you wanted to explain all of that stuff, you could add a note (see above). I don't see what's wrong with that. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, "(unofficially known as Superstorm Sandy)" might be passable, especially with a footnote, which, as I said, I think is a good idea, if we go that way. I'll grant you that much. But "(unofficially known as Superstorm Sandy)", in glaring boldface, is much more of a problem. That is what would seem to place equal weight on the nickname. And now that I look back at the way Option B is worded, I see that the boldface is not presented as part of it, though I also see that at least one of us would agree to it only with the bolding. To me, putting it in boldface is the most misleading way of handling this. It would make clear that the "superstorm" is the same as the hurricane; but it would also seem to grant nearly equal authority to the nickname. So without the boldface; with the footnote; and with some fiddling with the sentence we have there now about that nickname (to avoid fragmenting the discussion of nicknames; maybe we could just integrate that sentence into the section "Media coverage"), I guess I could live with Option B. --Alan W (talk) 06:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I may or may be okay with debolding Superstorm Sandy, but I don't think bolding it implies a hurricane is a superstorm. BTW, since this has never been brought up yet, look at Cyclone Ofa for example, it's more or less the same thing to what to Option B. As I've said before, I'm not a fan of the current wording, goes into too much detail and I even think the proposed "The severe and widespread damage the storm caused in the United States, as well as its unusual merge with a frontal system, eventually resulted in the nickname 'Superstorm Sandy'." above is better than the way it is right now. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 12:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, let's look at Cyclone Ofa, which is also bolded as Hurricane Ofa. Does that not strongly suggest that Cyclone = Hurricane? After all, they share the same name, and if the two are one, then it follows that the terms used to describe it must be equivalent. This does not square with your statement that "I don't think bolding it implies a hurricane is a superstorm". I think that more explanation is required for our readers to know the difference - after all, the proposal is to bold it in the first sentence which is where we identify and define the article's subject. If we are misleading people from the very first words, it does not encourage confidence in our material. I think we can tweak what is already in the lead - the existing and uncontroversial consensus - and do our best possible job, rather than sail into dubious territory. --Pete (talk) 17:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

(to Alan W) I'd be fine with an unbolded "Superstorm Sandy" with a note. I think it covers the bases that its unofficial but still a common term (which we can then explain in the note that the NHC officially called it Post-Tropical Cyclone Sandy at landfall, but that newspapers called it Superstorm Sandy. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Why in the world would we explain that in a footnote, instead of just explaining it in plain English, right there in the paragraph, the way it already is? It really seems like you're grasping at straws here. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 20:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

It's best not to clutter the lead with detailed explanations. MOS:LEADALT says "Consider footnoting foreign-language and archaic names if they would otherwise clutter the opening sentence." As for Ofa, no it does not follow that the two terms are equivalent, so in answer to the question, no. But if you really think ppl are going to think a Superstorm is a hurricane, then, it is best IMO to leave a note. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow, talk about grasping at straws. That actually made me laugh out loud. So, is "Superstorm" archaic, or is it a foreign language? Either way, that passage is talking about the first sentence. And I agree - it shouldn't be in the first sentence. It should be right where it is. Man, this wikilawyering stuff is really getting embarrassing now. Come on, guys. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 00:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

But if you really insist on picking and choosing stuff from the manual of style, why not look at the section directly below the one you tried to quote: "Alternatively, if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section; it is recommended that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves. Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line." There are more than two nicknames, and there is a section about them. That's where they belong. All of them. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 01:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Could you point me as to what these other notable nicknames are? TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 01:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

They're in the "media coverage" section (which could easily be renamed). Probably the most notable one was "Frankenstorm" (very widely used early on, and later got independent coverage when its use was banned by CNN) but Snor'eastercane and Snowicane both got significant use at the time. "Superstorm" just happened to be what the media were calling it when it stopped. If it had gone on a little later, we'd be arguing about putting "Turkeycane Sandy" in bold face. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 02:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

"Snowicane" doens't seem widely used [2]. Ditto with "snor'eastercane". While you do mention "Frankenstorm" as a alternate name, I don't think it's a common enough alternate name to be noted in the lead. I'm not saying the media coverage section should be removed but I still think it should be noted in the lead given how widely used "Superstorm Sandy" was compared to the others. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, from the links you show, those nicknames were very widely used. Maybe not widely used in the ridiculous modern idea of however many millions of mirror sites you might like to see on Google, but 14,500 results is no small thing. You can look back at the early history of this article, and see that at one time "Frankenstorm" was the nickname, and people were arguing for that. So, once again, we return to your "I don't like it" thing. You don't think it's significant. You don't think it should be in the lede. You're entitled to your opinion, but at least admit that that's all it is. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 04:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Define "widely used" then, I realize it's a subjective term. It seems now that you don't think Superstorm Sandy should be in the lead, even though above you agree with Option A/F. Yes, I don't think "Frankenstorm" signficant enough (though IIRC it was widely used early on). It should for sure be in the article, but as I've said, it IMO is not notable to be the lead. I've said before what my object to Option A in particular is, that is contains too much information on just a stupid alternate name. for the lead. After all, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." Now to a question I have not asked, what is your objection to debolding Superstorm in option B and a adding a footnote regarding what's said in Option A and possibly saying that a superstorm is not a hurricane? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 12:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be fair to say that 1,000 sources is pretty widely used. That's probably the number of all the sources of all the hurricane articles put together, and it's still less than half the number of sources for "Snor'eastercane". And, considering that one source is what most things generally need for inclusion in the article, I'd say 14,500 is pretty good. (Kafziel, added by TheAustinMan)

The difference is that Superstorm Sandy has consistently been a name of wide usage and has been used by FEMA and NOAA (Frankenstorm was coined by a single NOAA meteorologist and was not used in releases from FEMA/NOAA outside of newsletter/blog-style posts like the link I just linked, while Snor'eastercane was never used in government documentation). Despite the proposed 'unofficially referred to as' wordage, if you still have an issue with the name's 'actual' usage you should check the American Meteorological Society's Monthly Weather Review journal, which has 'Superstorm Sandy' right there in the title. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 21:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Again - not saying nobody uses it. Not saying those other names are more popular. You asked me what the names were, and I told you. I'm not going to sit here and debate whether they exist - they do. That's a fact. The guideline doesn't say they all have to be equally popular, it just says that if there are more than two, they go in their own section and not in the first sentence. And I'm really not a stickler for guidelines, so I really don't care that this one happens to support my position; it was just a reply to Yellow Evan's wildly misguided attempt to quote that same guideline. I'd much rather just talk about this like people, not like lawyers. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 21:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to broach on this particular point that much but I feel like there is something quite wrong with that, and no, no one is trying to talk like a lawyer. The problem is that 'equally popular' leaves an infinite cesspool of possible nicknames. There are many nicknames, sure, but there is only one outstanding moniker that has been proven to be used by official government agencies on separate occasions. Also take a look at MOS:LEADALT again. It's not that if there are more than two names, they get their own sections, but it "can be moved..." That being said, since I am only trying to introduce one, bolded nickname into the first sentence, we shouldn't be creating a new section just for etymological/nickname purposes. I am somewhat fine with the current state of the nickname but I favor the bolded Superstorm Sandy. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 22:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

We wouldn't be creating a new section. It's already there. Where I told you. It has been there, right there, virtually unchanged, since last year. I am not advocating changing anything at all. I really don't know how to make that more clear. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 00:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

You're right, I don't think Superstorm should be in the lede. But that was the compromise after endless discussion last year, and I'm willing to abide by that. It's reasonable, if not preferable, to have it where it is. And I always prefer (as should everyone) engaging prose rather than footnotes. A shortened version of the current sentence would eliminate the need for a note, include the information in the actual article (making it much more easily accessible to mobile users, for instance), and is still right there in the very first paragraph, which should satisfy anyone worried about all this supposed confusion and mass panic from our readers who don't understand why typing "Superstorm Sandy" could possibly have taken them to this article. The current version is a perfect compromise between having it in bold face in the first sentence, and not having it at all. That's why I don't understand why we're revisiting it in the first place. It was fine the way it was. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 14:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Does that not strongly suggest that Cyclone = Hurricane?" Well, a "Tropical Cyclone" is the exact same thing as a "Hurricane" or a "Typhoon" or a "Cyclone". I'm, quite frankly, not following what a lot of the above discussion (that I've read through so far) is really all about. Not all winter storms or hurricanes are "Superstorms", but some rare versions of those kind of storms are...I don't see what a lot of this discussion is really about. Guy1890 (talk) 01:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• Option B - per TornadoLGS, Cyclonebiskit, Yellow Evan, and TAWX13. United States Man (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Are we counting noses now? This isn't a discussion, this is a show of hands, hey? --Pete (talk) 19:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I see a majority of people here in favor of option B all with good points. Again this is not an article title discussion just a mention in the lead - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

What good points does United States Man have? If there is a majority of good points, that would be appropriate. But a majority of editors all saying "Ditto!", not so much. --Pete (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

But if they agree with the original sentiment I posted (and I posted many arguments), then they are indicating their support of a new consensus (and remember to all, consensus can change). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

You need to look up how consensus works. Counting noses isn't how we reach consensus. --Pete (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say consensus meant most Aye votes. I just said they're indicating they're in support of a new consensus that is in opposition to the existing one. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

No offence, but I read what you wrote. Please do me the same courtesy. --Pete (talk) 22:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

In my "consensus", people can agree with each other. I'm not sure how your consensus works. Perfectly valid post. 24.185.202.30 (talk) 00:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course. But consensus isn't counting noses. Or hands or Wikipedia accounts, is it? Consensus isn't something we can identify ahead of time. The formula "support for a new consensus" is merely saying "support for a change", which is just counting votes, if we are saying that "support" overrides "consensus". Which of course we are not. --Pete (talk) 00:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hate to break it to you but you or me do not determine consensus, that lies with the thread closer. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Knowing him, Hink likely read what you wrote and quite frankly, Hink is right. I am not him, but to be honest, if I was in his position, I'd be grossly offended. He has been an admin for five years and has over 50 FA's and a core member to arguably the most successful wikiproject on the wonderful site. Also, CB, TA, or I are not "noses", we are actual human beings that actually edit WPTC. I think USM is saying the same thing that I and my fellow project editors that have supported option B because he thinks option B is right. Anyhow, the strength of the arguments really matters as well, and while I am biased, but I don't really buy the arguments of anyone against option B (other than the fact it's unofficial (which JR proved we do otherwise in other basins) and the fact it was not a "superstorm" (then, why did FEMA and NWS call it a superstorm). YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is "counting noses". If four people gave compelling arguments, and UnitedStatesMan agreed with the conclusion that they came to because he agreed with the arguments and logic behind that conclusion, why would he go through the time and energy to re-write those arguments and logic? Inks.LWC (talk) 04:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

If nobody is counting, and he had nothing to add, why go through the time and energy to write anything at all? Adding a "me too" is a vote.

I think it's at least somewhat reasonable to ask why he would change his previous stance so completely. Who knows - maybe whatever epiphany he had could convince me as well. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 13:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

If you think that adding "me too" is simply a vote and doesn't help build consensus, then it seems like you don't understand what consensus actually is. If an editor agrees with the arguments and positions of other editors, saying that he agrees with those editors shows that those arguments and positions have support from others in the community. Consensus isn't just a straight up or down vote on something, but stating agreement with others' opinions certainly plays a role in determining consensus. Also, is there any way you could just use <br/> to separate your paragraphs instead of using two sets of colons and text? The first set without the signature keeps throwing me off, and I've never seen anybody use that format on talk pages before. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

No. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 15:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Consensus is formed through the arguments exposing the best course. If one little boy can say that the emperor has no clothes, it trumps a hundred insisting the bits are covered. Crying "Me too!" and "Ditto to that!" adds noise and distraction. --Pete (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I have asked United States Man to comment here by leaving him a talkback template - though it is worth reminding people that opinions can change in the blink of an eye yet alone 10 months.Jason Rees (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Adding "me too" is a !vote, but it does help an argument as it gives whoever closes this straw poll an idea how many people agree with a certain argument and helps the closer realize if the argument has any strength or not (chances are if someone agrees with it, it does). YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

In regards to the whole deal with the 'me too' or 'per (x)' discussion, again, this is a straw poll where the involved are just picking pumpkins from the pumpkin pile. That said, even though it does satisfy the 'rationale' for using WP:PERNOM I'd like further elaboration if possible. USM has not come around back again so the best we can do is wait and see. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 00:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• None of the above I gave my detailed thoughts on this matter in the thread above this poll, and refuse to repeat them here simply because nobody was competent enough to discern consensus from that thread. Like others, I also strongly oppose anything that looks or smells like a place where people vote. That's goes against all the principles of proper consensus forming. Simple "I agree with X" posts should be deleted on sight. They are nothing but pointless votes. This poll should be ignored by any wise administrator. HiLo48 (talk) 04:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
• Option B Articles such as the 1991 Perfect Storm have it like that. This is getting so annoying. The article itself desperately needs improvement, but here we are wasting so much time debating one freaking sentence.--12george1 (talk) 04:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It may desperately need improvement. It doesn't desperately need an unscientific, inaccurate nickname. I cannot understand the obsession. HiLo48 (talk) 04:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Simply put Wikipedia relies on sources, if a majority of sources are using a name then by WP:COMMONNAME it should be mentioned. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, good lord. That is not what COMMONNAME is about at all! Would you please stop trying to quote guidelines you don't understand? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 04:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The Knowledge(?)kid DID preface his post with "Simply". It fits perfectly. HiLo48 (talk) 07:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hilo I should report you for a WP:NPA namely "Comment on content, not on the contributor" I have seen editors use commonname justify for things used in a majority of sources here on Wikipedia as well. Not the greatest argument I admit but that is still no reason to go on the attack. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME only applies to article titles, FYI. If you don't think this argument is worth having, then, don't comment here, it's that simple. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 12:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

(to HiLo48, figuring general response better down here than in the middle, heh) - what's with your (and others) obsession of keeping the name out of the lede? It's a popular name that is widely used, that's it. It doesn't matter if it's unscientific, and I and others have shown many other articles that have unscientific titles in the lead, again, because they're popular. We don't go on Wikipedia by what's the most official or most scientifically accurate, we go by what's verifiable and worthy of notice. I'd even go as far to say that those who want Superstorm removed from the lead are pushing a point of view against the popular nickname. With such prevalence in varied sources such as Red Cross, FEMA, and CNN calling it Superstorm Sandy, I believe the first sentence really should include the alternate name, as we do with other articles in WP that have a popular alternate name. It's not obsession why I want the name in the first sentence, it's to treat it like we usually do on WP. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The 1991 Perfect Storm is a great example, we here on Wikipedia could easily call it just Hurricane One as some would argue that the names No-Name Storm and Perfect Storm are unscientific names and in the case of Perfect Storm no such thing. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

You're right. They are all unscientific, and shouldn't be used. We are letting newspaper headline writers lead us, rather than science. We are trying to create a quality, global encyclopaedia, not a place to repeat journalistic nonsense. We should not be reinforcing the appalling lack of science knowledge among the population. HiLo48 (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The media is not the only people using it. The name Superstorm Sandy has been used by FEMA, NOAA, and other reliable and scientific agencies. Please read above. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I've already said that organisations don't use language. People do. Perhaps someone who works for FEMA used it. Perhaps someone who works for NOAA used it. That doesn't make it official, and still doesn't make it acceptable for a quality encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

...and yet it's acceptable for the American Meteorological Society. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 23:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

No, it's acceptable to Roberta Balstad. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 00:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe TheAustinMan was thinking it was acceptable to the AMS since it has a peer review process of articles, but i wonder does an article by the editor of a journal really have to go to a peer review? I suspect not.Jason Rees (talk) 00:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

BTW, WP:RS says "Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.[1]". So, in answer to your question, JR, usually yes, though depends on subject field. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

While this is still being discussed, it is clear that "Superstorm Sandy" has remained the most popular nickname nearly a year after the storm dissipated. It is also clear that while we all know this, the article itself has not caught up with the talk page. So I have just expanded the "Media coverage" section a bit, adding two recent sources and merging in the sentence from the lead that mentions the nickname. I have left the sentence as-is in the lead, as the lead should reflect, in summary form, what follows in the body of the article. I have touched nothing at all in the lead for the obvious reason that we have not yet reached a consensus. Or, if we have, I sure can't detect it. :^) --Alan W (talk) 06:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

We certainly don't look likely to reach unanimity. And I won't ever accept that silly nicknames belong in an article like this. HiLo48 (talk) 10:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

"Silly nicknames" belong in an article because they were widely used. There is nothing infactual about saying it was called Superstorm Sandy. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 12:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

(to HiLo48), well, if you would've just said days ago that you wouldn't ever accept the name, we could've saved a lot of discussion! Your complete intransigence isn't helpful to the conversation. To Alan W, thanks for updating it. That's always tricky for a recent article, ensuring that we're reflecting the topic right now and not just a time capsule around when it was active. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me that because my opinion is a strong one, it doesn't count. HiLo48 (talk) 22:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

So can this discussion be wrapped up? We have the parties who have weighed in their opinions, I think someone should close this and make a decision based off a consensus (If one is present here). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus right now. If you're tired of discussing it, you're under no obligation to continue. You stated your position and there are others here who support it as well, so you don't have to worry about keeping up with it if you don't want to. You'll still be considered in the decision. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 22:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

What more is there to discuss? You and your handful of editors do not want the sentence added, while Me and a handful of editors do. The weight of the arguments should be decided upon by an uninvolved admin. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

That's not how consensus works. Admins don't just pass down judgment in a deadlocked discussion. Discussion continues. More people can join. There's no time frame. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 22:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'm fine with either Option A or Option B. As a meteorologist with over 20 years experience (including a lot of that time working in the NWS), this storm is really without much precedent in the East Coast historical record. It's widely known & referred to, both in the media and in the meteorological world, as a "Superstorm". Actually, I have no problem at all with the way that this article is currently worded with respect to the phrase "superstorm". Guy1890 (talk) 00:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
• Option F - the current situation seems fine. There is no official meaning of a "superstorm" so I think everything is pretty good as it is. Second choice is Option A. CrazyC83 (talk) 02:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

  There is this: [3]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion was closed by me on 4 October after a request on WP:ANRFC popped up. However, because participants were not aware of this request, and because relevant WikiProjects and active participants were only recently invited (without my knowledge) to participate in the discussion, I have decided to reopen this RfC. Those invited who have not yet responded will be notified that they are welcome to participate. I will be reverting my changes to the article per my assessment of consensus in the lead to its prior version. Please see this discussion for more details. Please do not request closing of this discussion until it has become stale, and please make a note of the request in this discussion when posting to WP:ANRFC. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 17:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - The close was handled so badly that I have no intention of getting involved here again, but I do want to point out a couple of things. First, if it's going to be in the lede, there's certainly no need for the ridiculous string of references that accompanied it in this version. Nobody here ever disputed the fact that one of its nicknames was Superstorm Sandy. Not me, not HiLo, nobody. (The dispute was not over whether usage existed, but whether it should be included.) Sources should be cited in the body, where the names are discussed in more detail. Second, Alan W made the point nearly two weeks ago that the phrase "unofficial nickname" is redundant, and obviously he is correct. Nobody disputed that when he said it, so I don't know why he would be ignored when closing the RfC. Again, this was not part of the dispute. Something like (also unofficially known as "Superstorm Sandy") or (commonly nicknamed "Superstorm Sandy"), or any number of non-redundant variations would be better. If we're not going to aspire to good science, we can at least aspire to decent writing. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 17:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - As a meteorologist, adding the nickname "Superstorm Sandy" does not mean that we are not aspiring to good science. It means that we are including a popular name used by the media and some government agencies. I have seen nothing in this article to indicate that we are not aspiring to good science. The concern trolling is getting a bit old now. Inks.LWC (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Nevertheless. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 20:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - As I already stated here, I didn't have a problem with the way that this "RfC" was closed recently. Honestly, that kind of close is the way that this very long discussion is going to be closed eventually. Forget the media coverage for a second...if you ask a meteorologist (even one in the NWS or the AMS) what "Superstorm Sandy" is, they will know that you are talking about Hurricane Sandy. It's simply what we in the meteorological field (and I think that's been shown very clearly in the long discussion above) call this hurricane now. It's really very simple IMHO. If more discussion needs to take place, then fine, but this talkpage unfortunately seems to have a battleground mentality for what pretty clearly appear to be minor issues. Guy1890 (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• It seems like you guys think I'm disagreeing with you. I'm not here to argue about any of that. I'm not even watching this page anymore. Haven't been since Friday. I just think if we're going to have it in the first sentence, we shouldn't cite sources and we shouldn't use redundant terms. Those are not controversial suggestions. I know it might be kind of hard to wade through it all, because I did write like 10 whole sentences, so I'll strike the scary one and bold the important ones, and maybe we can move on. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 21:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with the substance of the post. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll leave you all to it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 01:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. For the record, "unofficially nicknamed" was quickly changed (by United States Man, with I Jethro BT himself then fixing a probable typo, all within seven minutes) to "unofficially known as" after the premature closure, without any objections. The fact that that had to be done is just more evidence that the closure was done too hastily. In my opinion, however, I Jethro BT couldn't have done more to apologize than what he has in fact done since.

I'll add that I agree with you, Kafziel, that all those citations in parens do look pretty ugly, and they are probably unnecessary, since everything about the nickname is fully supported by citations, including the same ones, in the body of the article. (If you never return here, Kafziel, though I hope you change your mind, then let this statement stand as another opinion thrown into the general discussion, which I guess it is anyway.) --Alan W (talk) 04:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• B, A, F Per my reasons in the above discussion. It's a nickname that redirects to the article and I see no compelling reason not to follow the same style as articles on other storms. Sailsbystars (talk) 17:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Given that it's been 11 days since the last comment, can we agree there is a rough consensus to add in SS to the lede? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It's pretty clear that the consensus is the same as it was after the first close (if not stronger after Sailsbystars's !vote, which appears to be supportive of option B). Inks.LWC (talk) 20:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I will close this RfC again this evening. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I added it back in before seeing your comment here. Hope there's no more opposition. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

As a result of this edit, we now seem to have options A and F in place. I don't see anybody above who has expressed support for using both A and F at the same time. If we're going to take the trouble to have a poll, surely the poll should be properly closed and then the option that received the best consensus be the one that is actually implemented? --Nigelj (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I only added the "unofficial known as" to the lede. Shall I remove that last sentence of the first paragraph then? (or, anyone else can, really) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

My mistake above - what we now have is 'B and F'. Is it clear what the close is? Inks.LWC says it's B, and JethroBT says he'll close this later this evening. If it is B, then we need that last sentence (option F) removing, yes. --Nigelj (talk) 22:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Some citation tags also had to be adjusted. Yes, this seems to be the consensus, only this time notice of the closure was more public, and there was a decent waiting time. As I have said, I can live with this. Several others in favor of Option F had a chance to argue their case further, but it looks like they chose not to. --Alan W (talk) 02:13, 23 October 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.

Since I started the poll, I just wanted to say thanks, and apologize for overlooking the fact that an RFC existed when I started this. Just seemed like the prior discussion was getting messy and personal and I hope the poll served its purpose of focusing discussion. Anyway, thanks for processing it to a graceful end. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Global warming section

The section on attribution to global warming is dreadful IMHO. It quotes a lot of scientists who have various ideas on how it might be related, but gives half of one sentence (Trenberth) to the null hypothesis that it isn't related at all. But my impression from most of what I've read is that the latter is actually the consensus view, and further that hurricane stats don't show (yet) any visible global warming signal at all. One source for that is the IPCC AR4 report. One of various published papers by Pielke Jr. would be good, and/or statements by Richard Muller just everywhere (just saw this one http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alison-van-diggelen/why-is-former-climate-ske_b_2278509.html "Muller: None of the above. Hurricane Sandy was a freak storm that happened because a relatively small hurricane (it wasn't even a category 1 storm when it hit New York City) veered towards the coast during a very high tide. None of the causes of the damage can be attributed in a scientific manner to climate change."). There are as always lots of conflicting studies and stuff, but I really think that the article should start with the consensus. MikeR613 (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Muller is incorrect though. Sandy was the largest hurricane on record. I agree the section could use some tweaking, but there have been studies that have shown hurricanes have been affected by GW. Here is an article from last week that cites the United States Department of Energy saying that global warming made Sandy worse. I don't think there should be too much info on the null hypothesis, but I do think there should be less quotes and ideally only one paragraph of info. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Goodness - Sandy was far from the largest hurricane; it wasn't that big at all. It was the one that happened to hit the East Coast and especially NYC. Katrina was the one that happened to knock out a badly built levy in a major city. There were much bigger hurricanes before them and since. The consensus seems to be that there has been a considerable increase in hurricane (and tornado) damage in recent years - but that that can be so far completely explained by the fact that we have a lot more development in harm's way than in the past.

Again, I know that there are scientists who think there is a link. However, I think that the IPCC outranks them, and there are probably more scientists who disagree. Quoting this article or that doesn't change that. Anyone who thinks that the IPCC should be the major voice in global warming issues - and that it is anti-science for skeptics to rely only on the minority of scientists who disagree with them - has no business trying to ignore their input on this one. MikeR613 (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

As a side note, I think the concepts of "big" and "intense" are being mixed up here. "Big" is generally associated with the gale diameter/radius of tropical cyclones whereas "intense" is associated with their wind speeds. Sandy was an enormous hurricane that covered an area approximately 1,000 miles wide; however, it was not particularly intense as winds at landfall were roughly 80 mph (with a sub-950mb pressure). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Good point. I don't think it makes Muller wrong, though.MikeR613 (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Try to get this correct. What hit NYC was an extratropical cyclone. Tyrerj (talk) 21:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

This article (from NOAA, 2013) http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes might be a good choice for (what I think is) the consensus point of view: Global warming will probably cause bigger hurricanes eventually, but we can't see it yet. And a presentation from R. Pielke, Jr. yesterday to a Senate committee, on global warming and natural disasters. It itself contains more references. http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=a6df9665-e8c8-4b0f-a550-07669df48b15, including extensive quotes of IPCC SREX 2012 (IPCC, 2012. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation, Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley (Eds.) Cambridge University Press.) MikeR613 (talk) 13:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC) Not hearing objection, I'm adding a suggested section adding these links. I'm not taking away any of the text that's there, though maybe it should be consolidated. I'm not too familiar with the new editing setup.MikeR613 (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this whole section needs to be redone since the proximate cause is NOT Global Warming. Hurricane Sandy was converted into a powerful extratropical cyclone by the atypical behavior of the Polar Jet Stream. This is directly related not to Global Warming but to the abnormalities in the Northern Hemisphere Temperate Zone weather for which there are detailed meteorological explanations: The more extreme amplitude of the movements of the Polar Jet Stream which are the result of larger amplitude of the Arctic Oscillation and changes in the North Atlantic Oscillation. The Changes in the Arctic Oscillation are probably caused by the increase in the Arctic temperature which is related to the melting of Arctic sea ice. Is all this Climate Change? Or, just weather? This is a good question. But, remember that the changes in the NHTZ have brought unseasonably and record cold weather as well so it should be called Climate Change. Also note that some scientists believe that soot pollution, not Global Warming is the main cause of melting Arctic ice so that might not be Global Warming. One meteorologist appearing on TV attributed about 50% (she had a more exact figure) of the NHTZ weather changes to the Arctic Oscillation and about 30% to the NAO. That only leaves 20% that might include Global warming unless it influenced the other two. This is not a simple subject and a collection of quotes strung together does not cover the subject well. Tyrerj (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

IPCC SREX

Thanks to the one who added the quote from IPCC SREX. I've added a couple more, because I think the article is misleading otherwise. One needs to be able to tell that Trenberth is arguing with the SREX when he gives his "steroids" analogy: according to the SREX, the steroids have not (visibly) kicked in yet.MikeR613 (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I am reverting that addition, for the following reasons; (1) those are generalized comments that are not specifically made in the context of discussion about Sandy (whereas the quotes from Hoerling and Trenberth were in remarks about Sandy); (2) you have cherrypicked certain comments and excluded other SREX statements among them that storm surges are already worse due to sea level rise, and that intensity of rain fall and wind speed in tropical cyclones will likely go up; (3) if you want to talk about normalized losses, we have to talk about Munich Re's report that finds the opposite and we can do that at the tropical cyclone page or the climate change controversy page, but this page is about Sandy; and (4) any talk about normalized losses needs to account for the development and enforcement of building codes. For example, assume for the sake of argument that storm frequency and intensity has been identical each year since 1900. On the one hand there is increased development, so common sense would expect increased normalized losses. On the other hand, what has been built has been built a lot better (by studying past building/infrastructure failure in the face of storms and tweaking building codes accordingly). So improved building codes would expect losses to go down. Which factor is the predominate factor? Without adequate RSs that address this, it seems like this is a rabbit hole rife with POV. I'm not an expert in the RSs on these points, and if someone thinks they have been adequately covered, I have an open mind to consider proposed text with citations. But we ain't there yet, so I am reverting. Also, if anyone does propose such text, if it is not in the context of Sandy, then some article would be the place to consider adding it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, you are making good points. I am still concerned; Trenberth's comments may have been about Sandy, but they are all general points about hurricanes and tropical storms that disagree with the SREX quotes. I am not sure what to do with that unless someone can come up with equivalent quotes to the SREX that deal specifically with Sandy - but I don't know if that justifies being misleading on this page. Is it original research to note that if the IPCC thinks that you can't find a signal on hurricane damages, then you presumably can't find a signal on Sandy's damage either?

As for the point that I'm cherry-picking, my original edit did indeed point out that all these experts agree that the intensity, maybe frequency, and damages will likely go up in the future.

In summary, your points are good, but the article is misleading. There ought to be a way to mention that the entire section is probably a minority opinion, not only on attributing this particular hurricane, but on the claim that we see more and bigger storms now. MikeR613 (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

"Is it original research to note that if the IPCC thinks that you can't find a signal on hurricane damages, then you presumably can't find a signal on Sandy's damage either?" Yes, this is explicitly covered in wikipedia's policy on synthesis. You're inferring a conclusion from combining sources in a way not done in the sources themselves. This is disallowed on wikipedia. Sailsbystars (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Sailbystars, I agree with you, but the conclusion can't be that therefore we should mislead the reader. Rather, we should state exactly what the IPCC SREX says about the general topic and let the reader draw his own conclusions. It is obviously relevant. MikeR613 (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

If I remember right, most of the $$$ losses in Sandy were due to storm surge, which even your addition, the SREX report says are already worse due to sea level rise. That ain't no "minority opinion", as your RS attests. In addition, what you quoted from your source was about normalized economic losses, which is something different than trends in area extent, or wind intensity, or amount and rate of rainfall, or storm surge, or lightning strikes. For more background, see this excellent UCAR faq. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy, if the storm surge is a point of agreement, we should single it out explicitly. It seems that the other issues are very controversial, and (sorry to belabor the point) should not be glossed over. I've provided quotes from three scientists in the field (Muller, Pielke, Knutson, along with SREX which is clearly relevant), all from reputable sources; it seems to me to be a wrong choice to skip all that and jump right in with the scientists who have various theories all in the other direction. We are not doing our jobs. MikeR613 (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

"There is low confidence in any observed long-term (i.e., 40 years or more) increases in tropical cyclone activity (i.e., intensity, frequency, duration), after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities. It is likely that there has been a poleward shift in the main Northern and Southern Hemisphere extratropical storm tracks. There is low confidence in observed trends in small spatial-scale phenomena such as tornadoes and hail because of data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems." As you requested, a more explicit quote from SREX concerning activity and intensity, rather than just economic losses. MikeR613 (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

delete all ref to SREX in article (But include it at Tropical cyclone as part of a broader discussion). The reason it should be removed from this article is because Sandy struck in October 2012 whereas SREX only talks about the sci lit up through May 2011, almost a year and a half earlier. According to IPCC,

"In order to be included in the SREX, sources had to be published by 31 May 2011, to allow time for assessment. In some instances this means that the most recent events could not be included because they had not been studied and published upon prior to the literature cut-off date."

Bear in mind that the publication and peer review process is slow. To get into SREX you had to collect your data, analyze it, draft your paper, submit it, wait for reviewers, revise it, resubmit it.... and have it actually published by May 31 2011! Obviously the papers underlying SREX analyzed events much older than Sandy, and trends that had cutoff dates well before the storm.

To me, this is a solid reason to delete SREX from the Sandy article.

As a bigger issue, Mike, it seems like you are hot to include this here to counter what you see as "misleading" claims in this section. To persuade me that this well referenced section, using Sandy-related RSs, is "misleading" you will need to provide Sandy related RSs, or alternatively broad literature reviews where the underlying literature came later, so as to include looks at Sandy. Pre Sandy references based on even older events are a poor way to try to correct what you claim is "misleading" language in this section. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I won't push; you obviously know more about it than I do. But I would have thought that an IPCC report should be, if not definitive, at least not ignorable - until the next one comes out. In any case the NOAA (Knutson) report was from 2013.

I hasten to note that I don't think the claims in the section are "misleading". They are perfectly good sources from experts in the field. What is misleading IMO is skipping sources from those who disagree, including the IPCC. MikeR613 (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Just wondering, could anyone give more details on footnote 5? I'd love to see the chart that's supposed to be there! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.105.117.189 (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Tidal Reverts

So I reverted User:DigbyDalton again here. I don't see how that can't be improper synthesis. If there were a source that says "sea level rise contributed, but high tide was more important" then an addition would make sense. This source doesn't directly say tide >> SLR, but the added text does. It might be worth mentioning the high tide elsewhere in the article though, probably in the new york/new jersey impact sections. Sailsbystars (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I generally agree, though I do not necessarily agree that it would automatically make sense to say tide was more important if an RS says that. Suppose I get hit by car, and some newstory says the combined mass of the nonrubber car parts plus occupants and baggage contributed to the force of the collision, but the mass of the metal parts of the car were more important. At best, such a source would look silly. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

No, what would look silly would be, if you were hit by a car, the writer claimed that the reason the car hurt you was because the ash tray was full, somebody edited it to say the ash tray being full was not the reason, it was the 1000 pounds of lead bricks in the trunk, and you reverted the article saying there was no reference that the lead bricks had anything to do with it, and even if there were a reference, it would not automatically be true, so let's leave the original copy saying the ashes in the ash tray caused all the damage, and have the guy who edited it banned from Wikipedia. DigbyDalton (talk) 03:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

"Superstorm Sandy" should be bolded in the lead sentence.

I see above that in the RfC on whether or not to include "Superstorm Sandy" in the lead as an alternative name, the closing note states that there was no consensus as to whether or not "Superstorm Sandy" should be bolded. The Manual of Stile clearly says that significant alternative titles that appear in the lead along with the article title should be bolded. As the Manual of Style dictates the default formatting for Wikipedia articles, there should be consensus in order to go against its normal conventions, and as there was no consensus on the question of the bolding, "Superstorm Sandy" in the lead should be bolded now by default. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

No. It's neither a correct nor a scientific name. It's just a nickname, and one that many of us still believe shouldn't be there, but we have to live with it. Why are you so determined to push this unscientific content so hard? HiLo48 (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Eh, I disagree with Rreagan007. After having gone through the RFC, I think it works well with the alternate name not being bolded. It's not like it's a different name (say, if it was also known as 2013 October Superstorm). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I think not having it bolded is a reasonable compromise tbh and I can live with it. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 21:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I feel this falls under WP:IAR as a minor issue that (in my opinion) really doesn't matter. United States Man (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I think all of you need to take a step back and remember why the Manual of Style says we should bold the article title and significant alternative names in the lead sentence. We do it so that people that know an article topic by one name will be able to quickly and easily identify they have arrived at the correct article despite the article title being different than the name they know the subject as. We don't just bold official names or scientific names, we bold common names and nicknames too. The fact that some of you are fighting so hard against implementing Wikipedia's normal formatting conventions because you simply don't like the name that this storm is commonly known by because it is not official is, in my opinion, a violation of WP:NPOV. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not that we "don't like it"; WP:Weight has to count too. "Superstorm Sandy" simply does not have the scientific importance in the categorization of meteorological phenomena that "Hurricane Sandy" has. It is not an "alternative" name in the sense of being an exact equivalent. I agree with HiLo48 and Hurricanehink. We and many others already hashed this over in the aforementioned RFC, and the consensus was that leaving it unbolded is a satisfactory compromise. I don't see how not bolding it would mislead anyone looking to read about the storm. Just having both names in the first sentence (and that was hotly contested too) makes it clear enough. Nor do I see this as violating WP:NPOV either. To me, leaving the names as they are is more NPOV, as it better reflects the relative weight given the names by the reliable, scientific sources. --Alan W (talk) 04:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

We really are not going to re-hash the recently-closed RfC from above here. Arguments that the term "Superstorm Sandy" is "unscientific" or leads to "undue weight" hold absolutely no water whatsoever, and they really need to stop being brought up in this forum, period. I personally do not care one bit if the term "Superstorm Sandy" is bolded at all. Guy1890 (talk) 06:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I second what Guy says. The RfC is closed and this issue is not important enough to get into another lengthy debate. TornadoLGS (talk) 06:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Sweet gumbo.... I agree. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Mmmmm. Sweet gumbo.

We reached a consensus. No bolding! --Pete (talk) 09:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - I disagree with HiLo's rationale that because it's allegedly incorrect and non-scientific it should not be bolded; that's a non sequitur (and I'm not sure what a "correct" or "scientific" nickname would be) that has no bearing on whether it should be bolded. We have plenty of non-scientific common names that are used in articles (many of the species articles), and I see nothing inherently incorrect in the nickname "Superstorm Sandy". That being said, I've change my opinion in support of bolding it. I think it's sufficient the way we have it, and I see no reason to change from the status quo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inks.LWC (talk • contribs) 14:57 10 November 2013 (UTC)