Talk:Cyclone Anne (2014)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hercules[edit]

Re-added Hercules name with link to controversy article. The names Anne and Christina are also not given by a recognised member of the WMO. "Hercules" name has been attributed in media enough to be mentioned see NZ Herald, UK Independent and UK Mirror.Lacunae (talk) 11:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revert the removal of Hercules name again.Lacunae (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The name has been reverted per WP:PROMO as the names are being used by the weather channel for ads and publicity. The NWS the official weather branch here in the United States has said no to naming winter storms [1]. If you want links to the discussions that have already been had on this links can be provided with a look at the consensus that was reached here on wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is the relevance of the NWS for a storm mainly hitting Europe? Could you please turn off your USA-centrism? The Banner talk 02:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are using a name from the U.S., so what is the difference? And, if the storm hit Europe, why is name for a storm in the U.S. on there anyway. United States Man (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one who is making a problem of the use of the name. So you have to prove that the use of "Hercules" in European newspapers is promo that adds revenue to a USA TV-Channel. The Banner talk 02:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the one who said it was promotional, I am just going by the results of two separate discussions in the same WikiProject that this article falls under. But, I can start ANOTHER one if that suits you (and if that results differently, I will voluntarily eat my foot) :P. United States Man (talk) 02:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here in the United States the naming of winter storms is controversial See: Winter storm naming. If European newspapers are describing it as "Hercules" then please do not say it has any official status here. Here are some sources that talk about the link: [2], [3], [4]. In addition victims of damage can not base insurance claims off of the made up names. [5]. So in conclusion the Weather Channel here in the US is nothing more than a tv show. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here in Europe there is no standard naming convention. Every meteorological institution can give its own name to a storm. So a name that makes the papers, is relevant. No matter if someone in another continent sees it as promo.
Beside that: it was quite funny that you state that I have to reach consensus on the talk page before re-adding it. In fact, it is you who removed the name from the article, without reaching consensus first. The Banner talk 12:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the entire article should be renamed, as it is promoting the Free University of Berlin's Adopt a vortex scheme? The Hercules name has been widely used in the European press, often with no mention of the weather channel. The removed mention of the name does not describe the storm as being called Hercules, just states that the weather channel called it so, states the name is unofficial, and links to an article describing the controversy behind naming the storms in North America. I guess if such caveats don't make the name source clearly understandable then it should be removed, even at the expense of being able to clearly link this storm's origins over North America. Also, I really don't know of or why discussions on winterstorm naming elsewhere have any bearing on the mention of a name in this article?Lacunae (talk) 10:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plymouth Herald, Daily Mail, The Times no mention of the weather channel, so I disagree that use of the name is promo.Lacunae (talk) 11:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point of having the word Hercules in the article is to inform the reader that the area of low pressure had some meteorological history while over North America, personally I think it's unfair to insist on the removal of this nod to the low's history without inserting a description of that meteorological history, or a link to an article on wikipedia which describes that history. The latest wording does not use the voice of wikipedia to name that storm, or give undue promotion to that name (in my opinion) which has been used in multiple media sources without reference to the Weather Channel, so I really don't know why it's being removed other than "because editors on another page don't like it". If you really wanted to labour the point I guess you could squeeze in "controversially named Hercules" and scrub out the words weather channel.Lacunae (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone ahead and added the wording "controversially named Hercules" with reliable sources from both the USA and the UK. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christine[edit]

I don't know why the link and mention of this name is "unnecessary" perhaps it could be expanded more or put in better English, any suggestions welcome. That a significant amount of press in a country affected is using this name, I think warrants its inclusion, especially given the contemporary tropical cyclone Christine.Lacunae (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring and POV-pushing[edit]

It would be nice when User:United States Man and User:Knowledgekid87 tried to reach consensus first before pushing their USA-centered POV. The only thing I have heard by now was WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:ISAIDTHATBEFORESOMEWHEREELSEWITHOUT TELLINGYOUWHYORWHEN. I did not hear any realistic arguments. The Banner talk 22:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any vandalism here, the sources I provided were reliable and the fact remains that it is debated. What I did do was take Lacunae's suggestion which was to include "controversially named Hercules" rather than just continue to push for the mention to be removed. So you have yet to explain how the sources I provided amounted to vandalism. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Last I checked Thewire and The guardian were reliable sources. In addition the wording "In the United States" is used. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Funny how guilty parties try to put the blame entirely on others. The Banner is very guilty of edit warring himself. He even got to the point of reverting an additon of content supported by reliable sources. Sad. United States Man (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am still waiting at your move to achieve consensus before altering the text. The Banner talk 23:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the sources provided by Lacunae the name is mentioned. There is no reason to go on with naming the name "Hercules" controversial. The name is not controversial at all, as it is used in several newspapers. It is your POV that the name is controversial. Did you ever get the brilliant idea of using the name "Hercules" without using "Weather Channel". Like saying: "Newspaper YY used the name Hercules for the storm"? You two just use a blind bulldozer tactic and make a big fuss about it. So come up with a suggestion to rewrite the text, achieving consensus before altering the text, instead of POV-pushing. The Banner talk 23:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not POV pushing as the name has it's origin here in the US which is what the first sentence talks about if you read it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be so overly focused on the Weather Channel. The Banner talk 23:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is plenty of controversy surrounding TWC and that naming "scheme". Since you are in the UK, you probably haven't heard about it, but just do a search on the internet and you'll find several reliable articles about the controversy. United States Man (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@The Banner: It is really not your place to decide whether this is controversial or not. That is left up to reliable sources, which have been included in the article; they say there is controversy. I think you're being too UK-centric. United States Man (talk) 23:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that in the UK the storm was named Christina? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Only in past tense do the sources use the name Hercules. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not in the UK. And no, I am not interested in an USA-controversy fought out in an article that mainly concerns Europe. The Banner talk 23:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article describes the storm's origin though, if you want to take that out and make it exclusive to Europe then you should do that. If not then explaining how the name Hercules came to be should be warrented. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have just removed the weather channel bit if that helps here, it really does not matter who named the storm what does matter is that it is disputed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the bit about TWC being the one who named it is, to me, useful and uninvolved in everything else. It just tells people who named it. United States Man (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, please! What on earth is the relevance of this controversy for an article about a storm? Get real! We are not discussing The Weather Channel or some political blurp. We are talking about a storm that caused severe damage in the Republic of Ireland, United Kingdom, France, Channel Islands, Isle of Man, Spain, Portugal and you two are fighting over a bloody name. Ghee... The Banner talk 00:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, so why are you pushing so hard for an American name for the precursor to a European storm? If the name doesn't matter, then what is the problem?United States Man (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Twisting and turning but we still have this. Don't play games dude. The Banner talk 01:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between names that trend on twitter and names that try to be used officially though. The Weather channel uses the names as supported in the RS to gain publicity as it relies on views for income. The National Weather Service here in the USA though has asked not to use the names. [6] While the request has no legal status the question should be should we honor it when the name is not official in the professional sense? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Cyclones Anne and Christina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cyclones Anne and Christina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cyclones Anne and Christina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Split proposal[edit]

I believe these two articles should be split because they are two different storm with different origins and endpoints. A Skilled User 12:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)˜˜˜˜

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cyclone_Anne_(2014)&oldid=1206854221"