Talk:March 20–22, 2018 nor'easter

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management 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.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Weather: Non-tropical Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Non-tropical storms task force (assessed as Low-importance).

United States Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Expanding[edit]

@Dough4872, TheAustinMan, and Cyclonebiskit: Any of you willing to assist in expanding this with new info to get it up to date? Would be much appreciated and sources should be rapidly expanding the coverage of the storm. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 00:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it's a little early for more info, but I'm seeing the both local news and The Weather Channel broadcasting that is starting to snow in the mid-eastern/eastern Ohio, Kentucky, and eastern Pennsylvania valleys.--Halls4521 (talk) 02:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some links you may use for references: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8].--Halls4521 (talk) 02:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant copy paste adding of tornado information[edit]

@104.218.180.35: is consistently re-adding unnecessary tornado information into the article despite me telling them multiple times this is a redundant copy paste move, and then claimed it was standard across blizzard and winter storms articles. The only reason they are there in those cases is because they were as significant as the winter storm itself (such as this Dec 2013 storm, a blizzard in April of 2018 and so forth). This weak outbreak of tornadoes produced by this system was not as significant as compared to the snowstorm which broke multiple records for late-season snowfall and thus in my opinion takes priority. When I first made this article I left a link to the tornado page itself for quick access as I did not want the table to crowd the page of the nor’easter, which adding it simply causes that, if that makes sense. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 19:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioProtIV: Disclaimer: same person as before. The tornadoes were VERY notable from this system, as an EF3 tornado hit a university campus, and it was the first EF3 in over ten months. That has to make it notable for inclusion. We have it for Winter Storm Gail’s page, where the tornadoes only went up to EF2! We even have it on the November 2020 North American storm complex, which saw only 5 tornadoes up to EF1! The tornado also caused over $42 million in damage. This was not a weak outbreak of tornadoes, it was actually rather impressive and notable. Taking priority does not mean that we have to reduce a significant story. Also, MarioProtIV, please stop violating WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:OWN. Just because you created it a certain way doesn’t mean it has to be that way. Especially when your talk page shows a history of multiple warnings and reports for edit warring, taking ownership of articles, etc., actions which in part literally led to a filing at ArbCom. The only compromise I can see will likely get shot down; as in a seperate tornado page, but given recent merges it likely won’t be allowed to happen.74.101.118.197 (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere did I say it had to be that way. All I said was that when I first created it I only linked to the section with the intention of not clogging the page up, so the accusation of OWN is moot. If you look at the January 2016 United States blizzard which was identical to this storm, the table was not included. Also the ArbCom case is completely unrelated to this topic we’re discussing here so I do not know why that was brought up, which seems like that could possibly be a case of WP:HOUND although I think it falls short. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioProtIV: The ArbCom case, while primarily around canvassing, also including some stuff on your edit warring and insisting mentalities. Not wanting to detract too too much from the main case, this was much different from January 2016. That had six tornadoes, none stronger then EF2, that caused low damage. This DAMAGED A UNIVERSIRTY AT EF3 INTENSITY, a very rare feat indeed, and you haven’t given any reason as to why the tornadoes shouldn’t have a section and a subsection for the tornado despite me clearly proving to you why it does. So stop violating WP:OSE, and if you insist on a comparison find a valid one, and stop with this insisting behavior before it backfires on you at ArbCom. There is no reason the tornadoes should only get one paragraph. 74.101.118.197 (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

if we don’t do a blizzard, the tornado section should be at least 5 paragraphs per WP:DUE given how big the rest of the article is. 74.101.118.197 (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2022 (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]