Talk:February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm

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

Commons Category[edit]

Will this winter storm get a commons category, since I may get some pictures of this storm. My city currently has a 75% chance of snow at the moment, so I will likely get pictures of the snow to upload to Wikimedia Commons.DachshundLover82 (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can upload the pictures first, or create a commons category and then upload the pictures. If there are pictures, I can create a category on Commons. It will probably be under something like "Mid-February 2021 North American winter storm" or "Mid-February 2021 North American blizzard". LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 06:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@LightandDark2000 and DachshundLover82: I've created a Commons category at commons:Category:Winter Storm Uri. I chose that name as the current naming scheme of this page necessitates daily changes, and that's a bit of a pain for categories (I'm going to open a RM here, too, as I think a more consistent name would be better). Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 15:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is too focused on Dallas area. Texas was undergoing a state-wide crisis. Some paragraphs are not particularly relevant to the broader Texas electricity crisis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.201.228.202 (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same storm as the pacific northwest winter storm[edit]

This is the same storm as the February 11-14 storm complex that impacted the Pacific Northwest and the articles should be merged. An example of this is that they're both named Uri by The Weather Channel, clearly indicating they are related. Wikicanada1127 (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are not the same systems, the 11th-14th system was Tabitha which just moved off the coast last night. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 18:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the weather channel article about Uri it says "it's the same system that produced 11.1 inches in Seattle". Wikicanada1127 (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also Tabitha was the storm that brought ice to the Mid-Atlantic. Wikicanada1127 (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikicanada1127: The two systems were very close to one another and affected the Pacific Northwest just days apart, but they are NOT the same. However, MarioProtIV, I think (a) we need to combine the articles because it is really hard to keep track of the different impacts from each or (b) better expound upon both of them because it is a little confusing.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 01:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The large snowstorm that affected the PMW was Uri the one that brought the ice storm to the Mid Atlantic. How about we create and article named "Mid February North American winter storms" or something like that? Wikicanada1127 (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. We rarely make articles for multiple storms together. In the vast majority of cases, each notable storm gets its own article. The only exception would be if a large group of storms occurred in rapid succession and had overlapping impacts, such as January 2010 North American winter storms or 2017 California floods (though for the later case, there are 3–4 notable storms that still need their own articles). LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 06:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can we all acknowledge the fact that the Weather Channel names storms for publicity purposes? This statement comes from the NWS: "The National Weather Service does not name winter storms because a winter storm's impact can vary from one location to another, and storms can weaken and redevelop, making it difficult to define where one ends and another begins." So in other words... yes this could very well be the same storm. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's all a matter of opinion. While I personally support the practice of naming winter storms (in line with what UK Met and FU Berlin have been doing over in Europe), I will not force the issue on WP, and I don't think that we should make a big fuss over this controversy either. We have decided not to use The Weather Channel's names as the title for any of those storms, and since it is an unofficial practice (not endorsed or done by any of the U.S. agencies), there really isn't a right or a wrong way of handling the names. I don't see how further arguing over this issue will lead to anything productive. As long as our articles are accurate and of decent quality, I think we're okay. And the two storms are clearly separate systems. "Tabita" is the disorganized mess that moved off the East Coast of the U.S. on February 14, while "Uri" is the historic storm currently moving out of Texas and across the Eastern U.S. right now. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 February 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nominator Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 20:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 13–16, 2021 North American winter storm → Winter Storm Uri – While the name is "unofficial", it is used somewhat commonly in reporting, and is a better name than the daily-changing thing we currently use. I'm open to other options too, I just don't want to have to update this daily. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 15:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose We don't name articles with TWC names. It just won't happen.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 16:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – As much as I would like using that title, there was already consensus nearly 8 years ago not to use The Weather Channel's names in our titles. The biggest issue here is that the name is unofficial, not to mention that it isn't the common name of the storm. If we rename, it should be to something like "February 2021 North American blizzard." LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because that isn't the common name and there is consensus against TWC names. Oppose blizzard since it was just a few counties in the mountains. NoahTalk 17:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per the article Winter storm naming in the United States, "Entities from the United States government, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Weather Service (NWS), have stated that they would not be naming winter storms, and have asked others to refrain from doing so." 68.43.231.88 (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the reasons stated above. I suggest that the article should be renamed "Mid-February 2021 North American winter storm" instead. Vida0007 (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Oppose per the reasons above. Winter Storm Uri was the unofficial name by TWC. TWC names are not official, even though it is more popular, and besides, no article has an unofficial name as it's title. ~~ 🏅🌀𝕾𝖚𝖕𝖊𝖗 𝕮𝖞𝖈𝖑𝖔𝖓𝖎𝖈 𝕾𝖙𝖔𝖗𝖒 𝕮𝖔𝖗𝖔𝖓𝖆🌀🏅 19:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This was strongly opposed; should we remove or move it from the top of the lead too? Don't think we need to give TWC's naming such prominence, even if not the title. Reywas92Talk 20:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I'm going to point out that there were some exceedingly bad arguments made here. Yes, there are tons of articles where "unofficial" names are used, and in fact that's exactly what WP:COMMONNAME exists for. The arguments about the government asking people not to name them further do not apply, because WP:NOTCENSORED - we don't censor or change our content just because a government agency wants it to be that way. I am unsure if the name is the common name for the storm or not, but these sorts of arguments were not helpful, nor was the early close before anyone could combat such arguments. I also think that the use of these names should be revisited as a whole based on the fact that they are now in very common usage across multiple media outlets, thus making the names frequently the common name. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even literally Google is calling it "Winter Storm Uri" on their homepage in Chrome now. WP:OFFICIALNAMESONLY is a red link for a reason. I intend to, if I get time soon, open a new move request armed with more information. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weather Channel storm naming[edit]

Tropical storms naming are officially recognized globally. Unofficially recognized naming of winter storms by the weather channel is a weather marketing effort to draw attention to their reporting. I do not think promoting TWC's unofficial naming is appropriate in this or other storm articles.Doyna Yar (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was great when they first started. Now, multiple organizations unaffiliated with TWC have started using the names in their reporting. As such, a redirect is appropriate, and per MOS:BOLDLEAD the alternative name should be prominent and bolded for readers to see that they've arrived at the right article. Sure, it may be a marketing tactic, but that doesn't mean we can ignore it when it is widely used by the public and multiple other news organizations. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Doyna Yar: You can call TWC's naming of weather systems a marketing effort to draw attention to their reporting, however, that argument ignores several facts that need to be taken into consideration. Firstly, not all tropical cyclone naming is official and we would use unofficial names if a system was notable enough to deserve an article but not named officially. Hell we can't even say that all of the RSMC/TCWC's (Official warning centers) name tropical cyclones. Secondly, some winter storms are named by weather services associated with the World Meteorological Organization, including by the United Kingdom Met Office and Met Eireann. While the majority of highs and low in Europe year-round get named by FU Berlin, which as far as I know is backed by the German Met Service. Thirdly you are ignoring the fact that TWC has been naming for 9 years now which is a very long time for a marketing ploy. As a result, I feel that its fine to include the names in Wikipedia articles, especially since we are not censored.Jason Rees (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths[edit]

I found this source for 23 deaths in Texas. Would these be considered as direct or indirect because the article doesn't make it exactly clear. ~~ 🏅🌀𝕾𝖚𝖕𝖊𝖗 𝕮𝖞𝖈𝖑𝖔𝖓𝖎𝖈 𝕾𝖙𝖔𝖗𝖒 𝕮𝖔𝖗𝖔𝖓𝖆🌀🏅 14:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:February 2021 North American ice storm which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

should we add a separate page for the crisis in texas?[edit]

it seems it could warrant its own thing Camdoodlebop (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The correct way to approach a question like this is to develop any content that would be used in such an article here. One of two things will happen - the amount of content that can be added (within verifiability and encyclopediocity, without being indiscriminate information, will make this page woefully too long, and it can be split easily at that time; or it will be discovered that the information that exists and merits placement in Wikipedia can be covered sufficiently here without making the page longer. Subpages/spinoff pages are not created simply because it may warrant it - editorial discretion to keep articles manageable in size (not too short/specific, not too long/broad) does. And as of right now, the amount of content regarding Texas impacts in this page does not merit spinning it off at all. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also feel there should be a separate page (e.g. Texas Winter Storm and Energy Crisis). Already the section on Texas is longer than any other section in this article, and there is still a lot more information to add: the federal response, background on Texas' independent power grid, food supply chain breakdown... I think it is easily enough content to warrant its own article. Moreover, many people are searching for information on the crisis in Texas now and they are much less likely to find it if it is all contained under the heading "February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm." Burritok (talk) 04:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should be a separate article, to not unbalance this article. It involves matters not directly related to this storm, since it involves the politics of windmills, underinvestment, political deflection, the failure of the natural gas system, and also of coal; and CNN is showing hte failure of the public works dept in clearly snow in comparison to the electrified Arkansas. -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 09:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a draft here as a barebones starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Texas_Winter_Storm_and_Power_Crisis,_2021 Feel free to add any content you feel is valuable! Burritok (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone looking to create more foundational articles, I was looking for an overview at Energy in Texas, which already has an associated Category:Energy in Texas, but it was just a redirect to a small section. An example article is Energy in California.- Featous (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for agreeing with me. i’m not sure why that first person was so negative and rude to my suggestion, but what can you do! Camdoodlebop (talk) 01:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bunch of images from Oklahoma here[edit]

https://www.dvidshub.net/image/6521897/oklahoma-national-guard-partnered-with-ohp-assist-motorists-winter-weather Victor Grigas (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sea turtle rescue[edit]

900 Sea turtles rescued in Corpus Christi Texas

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorgrigas (talk • contribs)

Suggested images[edit]

Include:

  • An image of air temperatures and/or departures-from-average following the storm across North America.
  • Burst pipes in Texas.
  • Ice accretion total maps.
  • Power outage maps.

142.120.100.241 (talk) 05:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I really think the main image should be of the storm or a map of its impacts over the southern plains / Texas. Virtually none of the most historic / significant impacts were in the Northeast yet that is where the storm is in the infobox's graphic. Master of Time (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Texas Electricity Crisis[edit]

Would this article benefit from being split into another one called "2021 Texas Electricity Crisis"?

I think using this article to speak about the meteorology and geography of the storm, and linking it to an article focused on its social and political effects in Texas would benefit readers. That article could highlight infrastructural neglect, inequality in the water and power grid, and track longer effects on Texan society. One of the dominant streams of discussion around this storm is how the effects of this storm is disproportionately affecting minority populations in Texan metros. The reason why this disproportionate effect occurs is because of longer-term deregulations and shorter-term responses, especially attitudes of climate change denial amongst legislators. I feel that a meteorological article and a societal article have different standards of cause-and-effect which should not be mixed here.

2600:1700:5890:69F0:65CE:7A05:F167:FFB0 (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are working on a draft for such a separate page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:2021_Texas_power_crisis Burritok (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 February 2021[edit]

February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm → Winter Storm Uri – Following on the last RM, which was procedurally closed, I'd like to propose this again. Per WP:COMMONNAME, Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used. This says that we do not "wait" for an "official" name to be given, and that unofficial names are just as acceptable, and sometimes even more so. Per the article naming criteria, a title must be recognizable, natural, precise, concise, and consistent. The current title fails three of those criteria. The proposed title fails only one (consistency, but that can be remedied). The current title is ambiguous, as it overlaps with at least one other article. The current title is not natural, as most people do not discuss storms in terms of dates past a month. The current title is not concise because... well that one should be obvious. The proposed title is recognizable, natural, precise, and concise - which meets almost all of the criteria for naming.

While I completely understand why people do not want to support a "commercialization" of storms/disasters/etc, this is a much different situation than when TWC first introduced their naming system. As of now, even Google has taken on the name Winter Storm Uri, as have multiple other reliable sources, but not any of the "big" sources such as major national networks. To look at an unbiased view, one can look at news organizations which don't compete with NBC (who own TWC). In international news, the proposed title is used almost exclusively to refer to this storm. For these reasons, I feel that there is no policy-based reason to not move this page. A local consensus to violate the naming policy by prohibiting names that are clearly in the best compliance with that policy does not override the project-wide consensus of that policy. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I live here![edit]

I think we should to the article about the temperatures, which is the main cause for such an event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Beryman (talk • contribs) 14:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The word "temperature" already appears 17 times. What exactly are you proposing? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking we should cover the effects also outside of the US, as the affected regions also say Southern Greenland. Anyone have any info to add? --Djstriker91 (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article Suggestions[edit]

This article does not address how the storm impacted low-income and minority communities disproportionately (especially in Houston), especially since these communities were also those already hit hardest by the pandemic. I think it would be a valuable addition either as a separate heading or subheading under impact. Also, the "Aftermath" section is extremely short and could benefit from additional information about the long-term consequences of the storm, such as legislative plans to improve Texas' energy infrastructure. One other potential change could be to separate the "Preparations and impact" section into two separate section with a more concise summary of preparations and a full section just for "Impact" detailing the storm's effects. I think this would aid the organizational clarity. Also, even though there is already a separate page on the Texas power crisis, including a separate section on this page referencing the Texas power grid's failure could be beneficial for additional context. Amykuriakose (talk) 02:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merger[edit]

DISPUTED
Per ANI report, the previous closes of this request has been disputed due to canvassing. ~TNT (talk • she/her) 23:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I suggest merging the coldwave article into this one since they are directly related to each other and NOAA lists them as one event here. It would make sense to have a single article covering the entire event rather than splitting it into two. A retitling would also be required here if it is merged. We may also need to merge February 15–20, 2021 North American winter storm as well since it directly followed the February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm and largely compounded its effects. I'm thinking it may be a better idea to discuss this by area rather than by storm. The aftermaths are overlapping significantly and the cold temps of the coldwave were still in play during the second storm as well. If we are going to get this event to GA or FA, I think we need to cover it by country/state instead of having three articles split by storm and the coldwave. AON and NOAA list this as one whole event. NoahTalk 04:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would also propose a renaming to "February 2021 North American winter storms and cold wave" to reflect that. NoahTalk 04:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support, for merging to "February 2021 North American winter storms and cold wave" – After some thinking, I believe that a merger may be the best course of action for the 3 articles in question. While I'm normally staunchly opposed to merging the articles for subjects that are clearly distinct, Winter Storms Uri and Viola and the cold wave all have overlapping impacts in most of the regions that they struck, especially in the Southern US. While the meteorological history and the immediate impacts of these storms and the cold wave can be clearly separated, the same cannot be said for the aftermath, which sees all 3 of these events blend together in a way that cannot be separated. Even though Winter Storm Uri (the storm primarily responsible for wrecking Texas's power grid and the ensuing energy crisis) has the vast majority of the impacts, both Winter Storm Viola and the cold wave also struck the same areas either concurrently or within a week, meaning that some of their impacts are intertwined as well. Moreover, most reliable sources that I've seen don't even both separating out the impacts or the aftermath for the storms/event in question here (aside from some of the immediate impacts), which makes fully separating these events difficult. This also negatively affects the quality of the articles. Right now, we have one somewhat-extensive article for Winter Storm Uri (but still largely incomplete), and two more shorter articles for Winter Storms Viola and the cold wave that are definitely incomplete, but cannot be expanded much further on their own. As things are right now, it is impossible for all 3 articles to reach GA status independently, let alone FA status. However, a combined article would be much stronger and would be able to reach those levels of quality. Consequently, I believe that a merger may be the best way forward. If we are to merge these articles, I think that we should follow a format similar to Tropical storms Amanda and Cristobal and January 2010 North American winter storms, which is doable and will retain all of the information in each of the individual articles. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 07:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose any mergers I strongly think we need to enact a merge moratorium on here as well given recent tendencies to merge just because a few impacts from one storm are not able to be separated from one. Plus, the cold wave started way before these two storms struck (about a week or so around the 6th) so merging that is a no-go and can easily have more records or details put in. When this type of event happened in 2015 I was able to separate each event from each other on their own page even though they came in quick succession. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 19:52, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: MarioProt and I have discussed in detail off-wiki about related structures and have come to a compromise that the coldwave article will continue to exist, however, it will primarily focus on the effects in the west north central states, some of the northwestern midwest, and Canada. It would have a brief summary of the effects outside those regions, however, most of that will be in the combined article (broader coverage at X). I added the ability for multiple RSI bars to exist so Uri and Viola can both be in the infobox with their stats. The combined article would be organized appropriately. Basically, this turns the proposal into just merging the coldwave in the southern plains, Uri, and Viola. NoahTalk 00:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioProtIV: If you are okay with this alt proposal as I discussed with you and list above, I will close this discussion with consensus for that alt proposal (originally started on October 20 and adjusted my comment to October 23) as long as nobody else has any objections. NoahTalk 02:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Former !vote
  • Neutral merging the code wave and Uri, oppose merging Viola I agree with Mario that a few impacts from one storm are not able to be separated from one. Viola certainly has separable impacts from Uri in the Northeastern United States as well as the Northern Plains. Destroyer (Alternate account) 00:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Im sorry, but you are mistaken about there being significant northern plain impacts. It was in the southern plains where the storm was bad. Keep in mind the impacts in the NE can be separated, but the aftermath/cleanup is the same. It was about 1-2 days or so apart in both the southern plains and the northeast. NoahTalk 00:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • After further off-wiki discussion with Noah, as well as Noah's rundown of the proposed article structure, I now support the move. Per reliable sources, the disasters are essentially indistinguishable in terms of impact and aftermath in Mexico as well as the Southern U.S. There is also precedence in the January 2010 North American winter storms. Destroyeraa (Alternate account) 20:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Article structure Here is a rough breakdown for the combined article given my comment above about the coldwave existing still but with a narrower scope. It's too difficult to make an exact outline not knowing how much exists source-wise. The met section would be split into three separate subsections related to the coldwave and the two storms. The aftermath would be split up as needed by state/region. There would be a record section for cold/snow/ice records. Here is an impact subdivision example:
Mexico
Part 1. Overall damage/effects
Part 2. coldwave Temps/damage those caused
Part 3. First storm and its damage
Part 4. Second storm and its damage NoahTalk 01:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Slight oppose to the merge. I don't really know exactly why a merge should happen, but my comment and my slight oppose comes more from what "actually" happened. Listed on Weather of 2021, we have "A cold wave, in addition to winter storms Uri and Viola, kills at least 278 people, causes power outages for millions of people across the United States, and causes $198.6 billion (2021 USD) in damage. This cold wave also led to the 2021 Texas power crisis which resulted in 210 to 702 deaths.". If that statement is factually true, then a merge would make no sense as the winter storm and cold wave are entirely separate. I could be wrong, so if I am please correct that statement. Elijahandskip (talk) 06:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Elijahandskip: People took those numbers from the articles and simply added them there without any thought as to what they actually mean. The total that was given for the 210 to 702 is the total deaths estimated in Texas between all three of those. Texas doesn't separate the impact between the winter storms and cold wave. The report details the entire disaster that hit Texas. It is treated as one continuous disaster by NOAA and AON and thus should receive an article detailing its impact in such a manner. It would make no sense to make an article about the effects of the coldwave there, then another about the snow from X storm, etc... It should be covered together as impact was either occurring concurrently or directly after another. Yes, they should have separate meteorological subsections, but their impact should be covered together. The same thing happened in Mexico with the cold wave causing damage at the same time as either of the two winter storms. It's continuous impact and listed as a single, continuous disaster. NoahTalk 10:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that makes sense. In that case, I am changing my slight oppose !vote to a strong support !vote. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While it should be merged, not all the impacts were in Texas. So for instance, the tornado outbreak should be seperated 69.118.232.58 (talk) 20:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{Talk:February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm/Sources}}

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Orphaned references in February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "NCEI":

  • From Fayetteville, Arkansas: "Station: Fayetteville EXP STN, AR". U.S. Climate Normals 2020: U.S. Monthly Climate Normals (1991-2020). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Retrieved June 21, 2021.
  • From Hastings, Nebraska: "Station: hastings 4N, NE". U.S. Climate Normals 2020: U.S. Monthly Climate Normals (1991-2020). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Retrieved January 13, 2022.
  • From Shreveport, Louisiana: "Station: Shreveport, LA". U.S. Climate Normals 2020: U.S. Monthly Climate Normals (1991-2020). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Retrieved August 19, 2021.
  • From List of disasters by cost: "Significant Earthquake Database". NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Retrieved 20 May 2015.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Winter Storm Cost[edit]

In the article, it says that, "The system is estimated to have cost over $196.5 billion (2021 USD) in damages ... making it the costliest winter storm on record, as well as the costliest natural disaster recorded in the United States." However, NECI in their Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters only has the damage toll at $25.6 billion. This issue was also brought up in Talk:Hurricane Katrina but not acknowledged. RandomInfinity17 (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The $195 billion seems to have come from this source that provides no context on the $195 billion. Personally id edge more towards the NCEI, but ill leave it up to other editors to decide.Jason Rees (talk)
Per previous discussions (tornado outbreak articles & on Hurricane Ian), the NOAA damage total (generally from NCEI) should be used for infoboxes, but other sources can be mentioned in the article. Just the NOAA damage total (being the official damage total given to the storm system) is the one used in infoboxes. That sentence would ok perfectly fine for the article, except it should make clear which source is giving that damage total and have the wording changed to make it "possibly the costliest..." since that damage total would not be official from NOAA. Perfect example of this usage is Hurricane Ian, which has the damage total listed with the NOAA (+ Cuba) damage totals, but the article mentions several other damage totals from various sources. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I took a shot at fixing the wording and I fixed the infobox. I'm not sure when it was added, but I see Cabin134, aka a blocked sock master who was involved in pushing Aon damage totals for everything over NOAA damage totals in the article's history. Easy fix though. I'm not sure the best way to do the actual wording to separate the NOAA vs Aon damage totals for the US, so feel free to fix it. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We deferred NOAA in favor of the Austin/Travis County government source because local officials would have a better idea of what damage and losses occurred in their area than those at the national level. That's why the 196.5 billion was used. NoahTalk 01:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah that makes sense. Feel free to revert the changes I made then. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying what we did was correct, I was just trying to explain what occurred and why that total was used at that time. NoahTalk 02:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One would hope that the NCEI would have taken the damage estimate from the Storm Events Database which is compiled by local officials, but anyway have we got any more sources backing up the $196.5 billion as the total, as it seems a bit much to call it the worst natural disaster in the US based on just that source.Jason Rees (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, don't change something when a discussion is ongoing. That's a big no no that pisses some people off and can lead to edit wars. When something is being discussed, the status quo should remain until a consensus is reached in any discussion. NoahTalk 01:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the $25.6 billion figure only includes property damages. If you factor economic losses, utility costs, medical charges, lawsuits, among other things, the $195 billion figure makes more sense. Usually, damages from natural disasters refer to property losses, and economic losses (which are often much more complicated to calculate and take estimates based on the theoretical scenario in which the storm never happened) are not included. FlyDragon792 User talk:FlyDragon792 22:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A similar discussion occurred last year on Talk:Tornado outbreak of March 21–23, 2022#Use Aon or not?. The verdict was voided due to suspected sock editors plus one confirmed sock editor in the discussion. That said, it came out with some good narratives which might be useful:
  1. Aon damage totals are a reliable source for damage total information (WP:RS Noticeboard discussion conclusion) and can be added to an article's content.
  2. Aon damage totals are acceptable for an articles/storms infobox if NOAA has not published a damage total.
  3. Aon damage totals are acceptable for an articles/storm infobox if a NOAA NCDC damage total is also present. This would have both damage totals in the infobox (format done to this article, Tornado outbreak of March 21–23, 2022.
  4. Aon damage totals are ok for an article's content (aka text portion of the article), but should not be added in the infobox if a NOAA Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Diasters damage total is present, due to RS use of it over the Aon damage total.
Just tossing this out there since a few editors (as well as one who explained the difference between NOAA/Aon totals (direct damage vs direct + assumed damage)). Elijahandskip (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we use NCEI, we have to be wary of the implications. That would mean this would not be the costliest storm in American, or even Texan history. We’d need to update this across every single article that uses the total. Also, NOAA Billions accounts for inflation. That $25.6b needs to be marked as 2023 USD, which classes with the $1.5b in Mexico is in 2021 USD. Honestly, it’s a bit of a mess no matter what we do. I’d maybe say include a range but that might not be possible. --47.19.209.230 (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I threw a comment in the wrong section and I can’t find it, it’s in the orphaned refs section. It’s about the implications. I also disagree we should be limited to solely NOAA or Aon, but…47.19.209.230 (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you read what the fourth point says, only the infobox would use the damage total. Also, it wouldn't necessary be "2023 USD". NCEI doesn't update the charts much if any passed the following quarter's update (For instance, Hurricane Ian got an update when the billion dollar disaster list was updated in October 2022, but it occurred the previous week and search/rescue was still ongoing, so it was updated again in the January 2023 update to the list, which finalized the information. Had Ian occurred beginning of September rather than end of September, the October update probably would have had a much larger update with the January update barely changing anything.) Basically, we would put all the information in the text of the article (similarly to Hurricane Ian#Damage estimates, which also includes 2022 USD style damage from Cuba and the January 2023 NCEI damage for the US), but keep the infobox to what would be classified the more "official" information. That said, this discussion should focus more on what the official US information is: NOAA or local government. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Uh NOAA does actually account for inflation. The march 24-28 tornado sequence went from $3.2b to $3.4b in damage.

The NECI/NCDC/NOAA damage totals would not make the winter storms the costliest system but the local government one would which is why I want to see more sources backing it up. Jason Rees (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In that respect, this source lists the NOAA damage total of $24b (what it was in 2021 USD before adjusting for inflation; use that if NOAA totals are used), as does this source and this source explicitly states Ida as the costliest storm in 2021. This also doesn’t even mention Uri in the top 10. In that respect, I feel we should go with $25.5b - $24b in the US and $1.5b in Mexico, of course mentioning the $195b estimate.69.119.89.11 (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:February_13–17,_2021_North_American_winter_storm&oldid=1207576982"