Talk:2011 Halloween nor'easter

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2011 Halloween nor'easter article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A fact from 2011 Halloween nor'easter appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 20 November 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that New Jersey governor Chris Christie lost electric power at both his own house and the governor's mansion during the 2011 Halloween nor'easter (snow in Walden, New York, pictured)?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2011/November. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2011 Halloween nor'easter.

Wikipedia

Connecticut High‑importance

	Connecticut portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Weather: Non-tropical Mid‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Non-tropical storms task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

United States Start‑class Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Halloween nor'easter → October 2011 nor'easter – Storm did not actually happen on Halloween, more standard title. Dough 48 72 18:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Speedy move. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane

Comment I actully am getting a few media results for Halloween nor'easter, should we go by WP:COMMONNAME here? Yes the storm did not occur on Halloween but then again there have been other storms that have out of date names. What I came up for on Halloween nor'easter:[1]
Oppose It is being called the 2011 Halloween Nor'easter by several sources. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It still is misleading to imply the nor'easter had happened on Halloween, sites like The Weather Channel are calling it an October nor'easter or "Snowtober". Dough 48 72 00:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it did not happen on Halloween then it should not be in the title, however we it can be mentioned in the lead section along with the other names.Millertime246 (talk) 01:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It's not up to Wikipedia to name things. "Halloween nor'easter" seems to be the most common name for it IRL. Also, the snow is still on the ground. But most importantly, it is not up to Wikipedia to rename things or make news. JimsMaher (talk) 09:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC) 1991 Perfect Storm also referred to as Halloween nor'easter, and also formed on 28th of October. Should we re-title this article "2011 Perfect Storm" to suit? (rhetorical) JimsMaher (talk) 09:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC) "Autumn Mid-Atlantic to Northeast U.S. Major Winter Storm" [2] ... if you insist on being technical. JimsMaher (talk) 10:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. "October" is technically correct since the storm did not happen on Halloween itself, but I would point out that came at the beginning of the Halloween three-day weekend, and the effects include postponements and cancellations of Halloween events, including trick-or-treating:[3], especially in many places that don't have their power back yet (I just got a robocall from a community near me saying that trick-or-treating there (as if it matters to me) has been postponed till Wednesday. It may not have been a Halloween storm, but it will likely be remembered that way. I say we revisit this in a couple of months. Daniel Case (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This storm has been referred as a "Snowtober" or "Halloween nor'easter," but mainly "October snowstorm"; however, as this happened on the Halloween weekend, I'd like to keep the current name. Google News reveals a lot for both Snowtober and "Halloween nor'easter"; in addition, many Halloween events were cancelled due to the nor'easter. HurricaneFan 25 17:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support As reliable sources are referring to it by several different names lets err on the the side of the accuracy. The comparison with The Perfect Storm is not accurate at the present time. After the book and movie etc "The Perfect Storm" is the name being used by a clear majority of reliable sources for that storm. I don't see that here at all. I would support Halloween Storm in the also parenthesis as it is being used enough to get mention.Edkollin (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How is Halloween or nor'easter inaccurate? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nor'easter is accurate. The storm did not occur on Halloween therefore that part of the name it is inaccurate. The storm effected Halloween. The storm caused massive damage to trees and power lines why don't we call it 2011 October massive power loss or October 2011 tree downing storm?. Then at least we are naming the storm after a direct effect instead of a secondary or territory effect.
  - It is questionable at the moment if this qualifies as Wikipedia Commonname. As of this writing "October Snowstorm" 7982 Google News Hits "Halloween Snowstorm" 4760 Google News Hits, "Halloween Noreaster" 1970 Google news hits. Based on Common name only(it is not completely accurate totally some areas had rain only) it should be named "October Snowstorm" Edkollin (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Google Newsgap has widened. And by the way "No results found for "2011 Halloween Nor'easter". Edkollin (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME there are sources that link the name. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Look here: [4] This nor'easter's formation date was December 22, which is not Christmas, yet, it was named the 'Christmas 1994 nor'easter'...In my opinion, this is why this article should keep its current name. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can look at at other articles for guidance but you are not bound by them. Edkollin (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - people around here who partake in Halloween activities have been seriously impeded by this storm. Most festivities related to the holiday are now cancelled or postponed. Definitely an appropriate name for the system. Juliancolton (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And that is why it should be a secondary or territory name just not the primary one. Millions without power, people freezing, economy effected people can't get to work, elderly stranded or their dialysis machines or whatever not working and the only thing that seems important around here trumping all else is that some Halloween celebrations have been delayed and postponed. I don't get it I really don't. Edkollin (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per User:Edkollin. Auree ★ 02:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Listing in the Blizzard Template?[edit]

I see that this storm (the naming issue is of course in the above section) is listed in the template at the bottom as a blizzard that affected the US. I would like to make sure there actually were blizzard conditions at some point during the storm. Some of the forecasts, especially for coastal Connecticut that I saw, would qualify as blizzard conditions, but seeing as there were no Blizzard Warnings issued, I believe we should be sure of this before rashly adding it to the list. For the record, I'm not exactly opposed to including it, as I suspect there were blizzard conditions at some point. -Patricius Augustus (talk) 13:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I added it, because I noticed that few of those recent articles on the template don't specify whether blizzard conditions were met. In addition, I talked it over with some other people, and they said how "blizzard" was just a generic term now for a snow storm. If it gets removed from this one, I believe the other ones should be removed where it doesn't clarify if it indeed was a blizzard or not. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National weather Service definition "A blizzard means that the following conditions are expected to prevail for a period of 3 hours or longer: Sustained wind or frequent gusts to 35 miles an hour or greater; and Considerable falling and/or blowing snow (i.e., reducing visibility frequently to less than ¼ mile)". It has changed it used to be sustained winds of 35MPH and Temp below 20 degrees. That all being said it while the storm seems to match the technical definition very few if any reliable sources are calling it that. Edkollin (talk) 21:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Hurricanehink, Edkollin is absolutely right, that "blizzard" is a very specific term that denotes particular conditions, and it is hardly a generic term for a big snowstorm; although some may use it that way, they are very incorrect, reckless in their usage, and have a poor understanding of what a blizzard is (although oftentimes a blizzard is a big snowstorm as well, but sometimes it isn't, like the April 8 2010 blizzard in Alberta). Even if you endorse the approach of reflecting what everybody else says it is, throwing the real definition out the window, very few sources refer to it as a blizzard anyway. And also, this question came up in part because no blizzard warnings were issued by the National Weather Service, which scrupulously maintains the real blizzard definition. This is in contrast with a lot of the recent entries you mentioned, such as the Snowmageddon blizzards, where the blizzard criteria were only slightly met in a fraction of the snowstorm area (and I support labeling such storms as blizzards in these cases). Although your point stands with not making it clear in the articles; however, it is clear from real-world information, so if a storm in the United States qualifies as a blizzard, it should be put in the template regardless of the article's clarity. There are others, such as the December 2010 Blizzard and the Groundhog Day Blizzard, where blizzard conditions were obviously met, so any questions of clarity would be irrelevant. I suspect that blizzard conditions were met in some spots based on the forecasts and the reported conditions, but I am not absolutely sure. I do agree with Edkollin that it seems to match the criteria for a blizzard, so I support retaining it in the template. I just think it is a discussion which needs to be had. -Patricius Augustus (talk) 10:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

An update on various news sources: 27 killed and USD $3 billion in damages so far. Still about one million without power. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 01:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed reference[edit]

I removed the following reference: <ref>http://www.nws.noaa.gov/view/national.php?prodtype=hurricane</ref> as it is a dynamic page and no longer contains information related the article. --TimL (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minimum pressure[edit]

The low pressure and the date the storm dissipated don't match up. We list the storm as dissipating on November 1, but the lowest the pressure was by November 1st was 975 mb. 961 wasn't reached until November 3, and that was when the low was to the northeast of the UK. Either we need to change the pressure back to 975 or not list the storm as having dissipated until later. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Futher analysis of northern hemisphere charts show that the low appears to have merged into the semi-permanent low centered around Greenland, but it's hard to pinpoint an exact time to say when it transitions from one to the other. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After digging around at past nor'easters that moved out to sea, it seems the precedent is to list the disspipation when they move out to sea, so I've changed the date to the 1st and the minimum pressure to 971 per charts from the Ocean Prediction Center. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Hurricane Rina renmants fueling the storm[edit]

Considering the location and where Rina was within 24 hours, I don't find it unlikely it played a part. Can we add that(assuming we have a source)? --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 01:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That question answers itself—"if we have a source". Daniel Case (talk) 02:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to add it if we have a source? --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 13:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a good, reliable one, yes. Daniel Case (talk) 18:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Nor'easter which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]