Template talk:United States winter storms

Major recentist bias

According to the template, there were more blizzards in the past 12 years than the previous 100. It seems that every recent snowfall has made it in here, but older storms are only included if they were extremely significant. This is possibly the worst case of recentism I've ever seen.

I'd appreciate a discussion over how significant a storm must be to be included, but if there's no input in the next week or so, I'll formulate some criteria myself. ypnypn (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• I conquer, but have no idea what such criteria should be. —D-Rock 16:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm starting to think the template should be split by centuries. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 13:52, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Blizzards in the 1980's

Why are the blizzards in the 1980's being omitted from this navbox? The New York Metropolitan Area had two in the early-1980s; One in 1982 and the other in 1983. The on in '82 was actually known for occurring in April and forced the New York Yankees to postpone their opening day game. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE - A nice list of missing blizzards here. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

See WP:EXISTING. Unless there are clearly defined criteria like an annual award or sports event, navigation templates are generally for subjects with Wikipedia articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Blizzard of 1949

Tonight, there was a 1 hour show on PBS about the great blizzard of 1949. I was amazed to not find an article on Wikipedia about it.

• http://www.pbs.org/video/2365629270/
• http://wyomingpbs.org/blizzard49.php
• http://www.wyohistory.org/encyclopedia/notorious-blizzard-1949
• http://www.denverpost.com/2007/01/15/remembering-the-blizzards-of-49/
• http://www.wyomingnews.com/news/remembering-a-monster/article_405e04ab-8d7c-53e8-862b-db1fe505cbc1.html
• https://www.weather.gov/unr/1949-01
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8-bENij3RY
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3o3oHCSykM
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjjDVRKo5Wc
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BT2EW7TNE6c

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 03:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, many highly notable winter storms don't have articles - named tropical cyclones just seem to attract more attention for some reason. Help in improving our coverage is always appreciated! – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll put it on my long "todo" list, lol. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Addition of events without major ice/snow

The Tornado outbreak of November 27–30, 2016 and Tornado outbreak of February 28 – March 1, 2017 events don't belong in this template. They had no major ice/snow components in them. The rationale that the latter had snow on its northern side and is included in 2016–17 North American winter doesn't render it appropriate to include them in the template. Having some snow as part of a system does not make the system a "major" snow or ice event, and inclusion in the winter article is irrelevant to the issue, as the winter article is not limited to winter storms. The template is getting unwieldy as it is; it makes no sense to be including articles that don't even use the words "ice" or "snow" in them. This template was designed for major ice and snow storms, not major storm systems that had any amount of snowfall. The "major" describes the words "snow" and "ice", not "events". Inks.LWC (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I guess I'll go ahead and remove them, really just misplaced storms. —JJBers 04:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Major changes

I plan on making major changes to this template as I was able to transfer most of the information to a list article: List of major snow and ice events in the United States. rather than delete the template I feel that it would be better to repurpose it to include the "North American winter" related articles. The lists can also be linked here in another column. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm okay with the page but I'd leave the template as is as to provide flow between major events (Like we do with the tropical cyclone seasons). Having to go to the winter page to find it would be very sluggish. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 14:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@MarioProtIV: The most confusing thing to me are the doubled years. I understand that the winter seasons span the calendar years, but the informations should be presented in one format. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

That's what the page is for (as a sort of alternate hub for the links). --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 14:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

My idea would be to place the winter season links at the top of the template, this way the dates are in one format. As it stands now half of the template is sorted by centuries, while the other half by winter years. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Too many storms that are not all significant

This template should reflect the corresponding article - List_of_major_snow_and_ice_events_in_the_United_States. ~ Destroyer🌀🌀 20:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

No, it simply should not. If it did, we would be removing "Billy", the worst ice storm in Oklahoma in years. We would be removing "Dane", a major snowstorm for northern Ohio with over 2 feet of snow in areas near Cleveland. We would be removing "Eartha", a major nor'easter for New England with widespread areas of heavy snow. We would be removing "Harold", the first blizzard of the season. Many major winter storms do not have an article, and that should not define whether it gets included or not. HurricaneCovid _(contribs) 03:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I personally feel that the template shouldn't be completely identical to what's in that list, or contain only storms that have their own articles. Any winter storm with notable impacts should be able to be included, as long as it has at least a section on one of the winter articles (by this standard, any winter storm with an article would automatically qualify). Not all significant winter storms are currently included in the list article, and there are still a handful of notable winter storms that still do not have articles on Wikipedia. As things stand right now, I think that Destroyeraa has removed essentially all of the insignificant winter storms in the recent winters from the infobox, along with every single storm that doesn't have an article or section anywhere. I don't think that we need to do any more pruning at this point. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@HurricaneCovid and LightandDark2000: Winter storms happen many many times in the U.S. every winter. Almost every winter storm that gets a name from the Weather Channel because it dropped a foot of somewhere or created a traffic jam on some Interstate. Not every single one of them are "major." The template explicitly states "Major snow and ice events in the United States," not "Notable snow and ice events in the United States." Listing every single storm ther that dropped a foot+ of snow or killed a person will really blow up the template. ~ Destroyer🌀🌀 13:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but "Billy" must be included; it was a historic ice storm, and "Harold" must be included; it was a major and widespread blizzard. HurricaneCovid _(contribs) 15:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say that we should include every single winter storm that the U.S. gets, or every single winter storm named by the Weather Channel (not all of those have articles on WP, either). That would be going overboard if we did. If a winter storm does have it's own article, it's almost certainly notable enough for inclusion in the template (I think we already have included all the ones with articles; there really aren't all that many compared to the actual number of winter storms the U.S. has seen). But just strictly sticking to what's currently in "List of major snow and ice events in the United States", or mostly what's in that article, would leave out too many significant winter storms. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)