Talk:December 2010 North American blizzard

This article was nominated for deletion on December 27 2010. The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn.

	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).

Closed discussion?[edit]

This page had numerous lines of discussion, which have been removed since the storm has developed. Does this mean that the deletion tag can be removed? Bill S. (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would think so (I think this article will stay) although maybe we should change it to "First North American Bilzzard of the 2010-2011 Winter Season" or something like that, since we are in a new season and saying that it is the 4th is inaccurate (since the first 3 were last season) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.40.217 (talk) 00:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snowfall totals[edit]

More data on snowfall totals is in the public information statements from various weather service offices, e.g. Richmond/Norfolk, Washington/Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, Albany, and Boston. I'm not sure how much of this should be incorporated; furthermore, these links aren't permanent (though a bunch of recent versions can be retrieved). -David Baron (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find that the lengthy list of snowfall totals is not a useful feature on this article. It's too much information for any average user who's looking at this storm. The fact that this list occurs right in the middle of the article makes navigating it much harder. I recommend that the snowfall totals be summarized, or some highlights given, instead of this long list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leizmonk (talk • contribs) 21:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move?[edit]

The title doesn't help much, since the other three blizzards were earlier in 2010. I propose moving the article to December 2010 North America blizzard. I feel the month is needed, and it should be clarified that the blizzard occurred in eastern North America, as opposed to the entire continent. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of the Previous articles do say "North American Blizzard" so it is consistant with the rest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.40.217 (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I still think it should be moved to emphasize the month, not that it was the fourth of the year. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that it should have remained the "Fourth North American blizzard of 2010", as three other blizzards preceded it during that calendar year, even though this blizzard was in a different winter season. Usually, only one blizzard is of note in any calendar year, and not every year has a blizzard. Four blizzards in one calendar year is certainly a noteworthy amount and possibly record-breaking. As TomCat posted below, the United States does not celebrate Boxing Day, and this storm should not bear the name of a holiday which is not celebrated in the nation which was most-affected by it. Also, this blizzard did get its start in California, where it was part of a system that dumped 168 inches (430 cm) of snow in the Sierra Nevada mountains. Bill S. (talk) 21:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should be moved again. Boxing Day isn't celebrated in the United States, it is only observed in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and in some Commonwealth nations. Since this is about an American storm it shouldn't be named after a British holiday. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Boxing Day is not known in America. As that is where this event took place, it should be so named. 24.184.90.191 (talk) 22:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus seemed to be move so I was bold and moved it to Hurricanehink's suggested title. TomCat4680 (talk) 23:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bill S. and I believe the article should be moved back or renamed to the "Fourth North American blizzard of 2010", as this is the fourth blizzard of the 2010 calendar year to affect the United States and North America. Perhaps we should change the naming scheme of such blizzards and be more specific and call them either Nor'easters or something more specific because North American sounds too vague and it implies all of North America. But more importantly the renaming of the article to "Fourth North American blizzard of 2010" is more appropriate. -Vlad (talk) 03:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have any sources called it the fourth blizzard of 2010, though? It is a separate winter season. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually debatable if any of these recent storms have been true "Blizzards" per se (due to the necessary conditions for an official Blizzard) so you may not hear the word Blizzard when describing these storms in the Mainstream Media (instead referring to them as Nor'easters) however the general consensus here is to list them is Blizzards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.40.217 (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP should not assign serial numbers to storms. Hurricanes and tropical depressions have numbers and names officially assigned, and if those officials decide also to assign numbers to tornadoes or blizzards we should use them but otherwise not. This article is rightly named; any blizzard articles that are named with a serial number are the ones with the wrong name. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name for the Blizzard[edit]

The blizzard is now being called "Bloomberg Blizzard" or "The Bloomberg Blizzard" for all the failures in NYC that Mayor Mike Bloomberg was responsible for. --bigware (talk) 07:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not the Christmas Weekend Blizzard? -- Watch For Storm Surge!§eb 00:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because Bloomberg was ultimately responsible for the horrible situation that is still tangling NYC. This is not the first, nor will it be the last, big blizzard in NYC. Those of us who know how it should be handled are furious. --204.246.229.130 (talk) 20:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the major storm impacts were limited to the Greater New York City Area the Bloomberg blizzard that would be the proper name. I favor 2010 Post Christmas Blizzard with Bloomberg blizzard as an alternative name. Post Christmas blizzard is the moat common name being used. Edkollin (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The South[edit]

The storm's origins aren't well discussed. The background section needs to be expanded. And I think it's notable that this storm brought a White Christmas to parts of the south for the first time in nearly 130 years. Some places had never seen snow on Christmas before. And yes, I realize that I can do this myself, but I felt it meritted discussion. -- Watch For Storm Surge!§eb 00:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on December 2010 North American blizzard. 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) 19:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]