Talk:2015–16 North American winter

Storms for consideration

 * November 2015 Midwest Winter Storm
 * November 2015 ice storm
 * January 4-7, 2016 California storms
 * January 16-17 cold wave — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdcomix (talk • contribs) 00:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * February 4-5, 2016 Nor'easter
 * February 7-9, 2016 Nor'easter
 * February 7-10, 2016 North American Blizzard
 * February 11-13, 2016 North American cold wave
 * February 14-17, 2016 North American Winter Storm/Storm Complex (aka 2016 President's Day Winter Storm/Storm Complex)--Halls4521 (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Late February (21-?) 2016 Winter Storm and Tornado Outbreak (Deadly Storm)--Halls4521 (talk) 01:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I added the November ice storm 2 days ago, the feb. 7-9 nor'easter is already there, the 4-5 nor'easter is part of the February 2016 North American winter storm, the feb. 11-13 cold wave was already there as was the 14-17 snowstorm and the tornado outbreak. The clipper that followed the nor'easter on feb. 8-9 wasn't too big so it doesn't require a section. --MarioProtIV (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

January 2016 North American blizzard
 Support split - This historic storm is highly anticipated, extreme measures are being put in place to prepare for the weather, so it should be given its own article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There's nothing concrete to write about it at the moment, sans some minor impacts across the West with its precursor, it's largely just predictions. Per WP:CRYSTAL: Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. There's still a chance the models are wrong and this storms busts. When the storm gets going and we have something concrete, then an article can be made. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 *  Not yet- At this point, the only uncertainty in the models is whether there will be 12 inches or 36 inches. Either one would be notable across such a large area of the country. Even if the models are flat out wrong and this turns into a bust, such a colossal failure of every single model out there would in itself be notable. However, there is still very little in the way of concrete information. Although 2034 Atlantic Hurricane season is notable like all such seasons, and there is almost certain to be at least one tropical cyclone that year, it is still far too early to have any concrete information, so such an article does not exist. This is a less extreme example - we should have concrete information within 24-36 hours, at which point WP:SNOW this discussion and create the article. Pun absolutely intended. Smartyllama (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC) It's time. Smartyllama (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose would much rather wait until we have at least a few paragraphs here before splitting it. I have also redirected Winter storm Jonas here, as that appears to be the name used by sources.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  20:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose - There is little in the way of concrete information, so we would be better off waiting a for short while as the situation unfolds. Dustin  ( talk ) 21:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: States of emergency have been declared in several states. Flights from multiple airports have been cancelled. Last night/this morning there were over 700 car crashes in Virginia alone. Stores are being emptied out for what is anticipated to be the largest storm in Washington DC history. There are scores of news articles about this. People are making preparations for the storm now. Waiting until tomorrow to debut the article no longer makes sense. gobonobo  + c 01:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Looks like Cyclonebiskit has gone ahead and split it. I'm fine with this.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  01:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

No template
I found that there was no template for a picture on this talk page. OwenJiang (talk) 07:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Splitting March floods into new article
I think it is acceptable if we go ahead and make the article for this event. But I would also wait until we get more info before deciding to do this. Opinions? --MarioProtIV (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If there's enough information, which I'm certain there is, go for it. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)