Talk:Hurricane Bawbag

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hurricane Bawbag. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120107172114/http://entertainment.stv.tv/opinion/286086-scotlands-hurricane-bawbag-raises-twitter-storm-the-top-reactions/ to http://entertainment.stv.tv/opinion/286086-scotlands-hurricane-bawbag-raises-twitter-storm-the-top-reactions/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120108020144/http://entertainment.stv.tv/showbiz/286442-phillip-schofield-left-bemused-by-hurricane-bawbag/ to http://entertainment.stv.tv/showbiz/286442-phillip-schofield-left-bemused-by-hurricane-bawbag/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hurricane Bawbag. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120113163201/http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2011/12/09/how-internet-sensation-hurricane-bawbag-helped-scotland-conquer-the-world-86908-23621364/ to http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2011/12/09/how-internet-sensation-hurricane-bawbag-helped-scotland-conquer-the-world-86908-23621364/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120103215536/http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/editors-choice/2011/12/10/scots-slang-highlighted-after-country-is-battered-by-hurricane-bawbag-86908-23624975/ to http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/editors-choice/2011/12/10/scots-slang-highlighted-after-country-is-battered-by-hurricane-bawbag-86908-23624975/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120108010758/http://www.thelocal.se/37828/20111208 to http://www.thelocal.se/37828/20111208/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Hurricane Bawbag. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/uk/surface_pressure.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/marine/highseas_forecast.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.reactionsnet.com/RMSArticle/2946186/Windstorm-Friedhelm.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/uk/uk_forecast_weather.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120110115838/http://www.thecourier.co.uk/News/National/article/19520/scottish-government-asks-schools-to-close-for-severe-gales.html to http://www.thecourier.co.uk/News/National/article/19520/scottish-government-asks-schools-to-close-for-severe-gales.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Hurricane Bawbag. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120117191235/http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2011/research-flight to http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2011/research-flight
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120429155840/http://www.stockholmnews.com/more.aspx?NID=8153 to http://www.stockholmnews.com/more.aspx?NID=8153
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111211090609/http://www.smhi.se/vadret/vadret-i-sverige/Vaderoversikt-Sverige-meteorologens-kommentar to http://www.smhi.se/vadret/vadret-i-sverige/Vaderoversikt-Sverige-meteorologens-kommentar
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120205193959/http://www.goteborgdaily.se/news/strong-winds-close-alvsborgsbron-1 to http://www.goteborgdaily.se/news/strong-winds-close-alvsborgsbron-1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120526174115/http://www.goteborgdaily.se/news/gota-tunnel-closed-due-to-flooding to http://www.goteborgdaily.se/news/gota-tunnel-closed-due-to-flooding

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Name Change

 * 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 section. 

There does not seem to be consensus for Friedhelm or Bawbag. Therefore, as a compromise, I will move it to December 2011 North Atlantic cyclone, as at least one user suggested in the discussion. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me!  11:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Cyclone Friedhelm → Hurricane Bawbag – Jason Rees (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I Strongly Support using Cyclone Friedhelm as the article title. The nickname for the storm isn't the best option for the article's title. And there are several points I would like to highlight. 1) The consensus was far from "clear", and it was 9 years ago. 2) "Hurricane Bawbag" is a misleading title. The storm was most certainly not a hurricane. Any title that could potentially mislead our readers is a problem. 3) I haven't seen evidence showing that "Hurricane Bawbag" is the unambiguous WP:COMMONNAME outside of Scotland. We need to look at this from a global perspective, not a local one. And also, if the common name causes confusion, we should resort to the next most commonly-used name. 4) Using "Hurricane Bawbag" for the title is hugely inconsistent with how we handle other European windstorm articles. We should not go against the standard practice without a very good reason, and honestly, being a local common name isn't good enough to carve out an exception. Cyclone Friedhelm is thus the best option for this article's title. It's also as close to an official name as we will get, since FU Berlin's names are treated as official in Europe. Since 2015, UK Met has started naming storms that affect the British Isles, but before then, FU Berlin's names were accepted as official for the entire region. If we use the nickname for this article, then we should also use The Weather Channel's names for several of our North American winter storm articles, since some of those names are unambiguous common names. No matter how we handle this issue, we should be consistent in our approach.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * On the matter of winter storm naming as a whole, I tilt oppose using the unofficial names for the article titles, for procedural reasons only. As much as I would love to use the common names for some of these articles, we had a massive RfC nearly 3 months ago on the same issue, and while the discussion got very heated, it was clear that there was no consensus to use the unofficial names, even though the unofficial names in question (Weather Channel names) were clearly the undisputed common names for those winter storms. I don't see that consensus changing anytime soon. We need to take an all-or-nothing approach. Either we use the official names for ALL of our winter storm/European windstorm titles, or we allow the usage of unofficial, common names for both some European windstorms AND North American winter storms. If this article is to be titled Hurricane Bawbag, then February 2013 North American blizzard, January 2016 North American blizzard, February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm, and February 15–20, 2021 North American winter storm should all be renamed to Winter Storm Nemo, Winter Storm Jonas, Winter Storm Uri, and Winter Storm Viola, respectively, for the same reasons that some users want this article to use the common name. Those North American winter storms present exactly the same case. In the case of Winter Storms Nemo and Uri, there is actually an even stronger WP:COMMONNAME argument, because not only did multiple media outlets use those names, but those names were also adopted by official U.S. Government sources as well. But we have to take a consistent approach here. Either we use the official names for ALL of our extratropical cyclone articles, or we allow the usage of common names in some cases, INCLUDING North American winter storm articles. Taking an inconsistent approach here would be a massive disservice to all of our readers.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Pinging all of the users who were involved in the last massive winter storm article naming discussion, along with a few others who may be interested. We should take an all-or-nothing approach here. Either ALL of the extratropical cyclone articles use the official names, or we allow the usage of the common names for several exceptions where the common name sees widespread usage (including by Government sources), INCLUDING North American winter storm articles.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

There was clear consensus |above that the article should be called Hurricane Bawbag. A new RM is required should anyone wish it to be called something else. Blethering  Scot  23:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose renaming North American winter storms to TWC names. It does not matter whether or not the government refers to it. As was stated previously back when the issue first came up in 2012, NWS has rejected the naming of winter storms and giving the TWC names official leeway would be giving WP:UNDUE as many sources also refer to the storms as just simply “blizzard” or “massive nor’easter”. It’s the same policy we give to tropical cyclone names, we simply refer to it as “[date] [location] hurricane/tropical storm/cyclone” if there is no official name used. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 01:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not how Wikipedia works. A WikiProject cannot enforce their consensus on individual articles if those individual articles form a consensus against that WikiProject. Furthermore, the consensus formed that "only official names" is very weak - it flies in the face of COMMONNAME which is a project-wide consensus - and as such, that's not a good argument to make. The note in this article makes it clear that the common name for the storm was Hurricane Bawbag, and as such it should be moved there. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In the United States the most commonly used names are "Blizzard", "Nor'easter" or "Ice storm" when referred to by WP:RS. This is different in Europe as governments officially name storms there (my guess is that like Hurricanes they impact shipping). We have already had two separate discussions on the matter, the focus here should be this article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with this - I was intending to point out that the consensus here should be on naming this article and doesn't depend on flimsy consensus about other articles elsewhere that aren't based on policy. The focus here should be on this article and based on policy and guidelines, as well as project-wide consensus of COMMONNAME. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mario. We should use official names when they exist, but we shouldn't give undue legitimacy to unofficial names by changing our entire series of winter storm articles' titles (I strongly oppose any motion to do so). Master of Time   ( talk ) 02:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support clear common name is Hurricane Bawbag and the article should be named that. This notion that Wikipedia must follow "official" names only flies in the face of multiple project wide policies/consensuses. Note that Wikipedia doesn't care what the "right" name is, nor do we care about fixing the mistakes reliable sources made. If reliable sources commonly called it Hurricane Bawbag, it doesn't matter that "technically" it's not a hurricane - and it's not our job to fix their errors - it's our job to follow the reliable sources. There's more than ample sources in the article already to support the assertion that Hurricane Bawbag is the most common name used in English language reliable sources, and it's for this reason that there's literally a note in the article explaining that it was such. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A note - the move against past consensus without a new consensus is, in my opinion, a contested move and should be reverted. While consensus can change, it's not appropriate to assume it has changed, especially when the reason for moving is in complete violation of the policies referenced in the old failed move request as the reasons not to move. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Strongly Support naming article Cyclone Friedhelm Are we REALLY still discussing this? Use the OFFICIAL name for these articles, not a nickname. Otherwise, we might as well use nicknames and unofficial names for all storm (i.e. Superstorm Sandy instead of Hurricane Sandy).ChessEric (talk · contribs) 01:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * We


 * Oppose naming Hurricane Bawbag We have in the past failed to have consensus on whether to use unofficial names on extratropical cyclone articles. Personally, I would oppose the name "Hurricane Bawbag"; if we name it that, then we should name all winter storm articles where TWC names were the common name as the TWC name. We aren't doing that, and so we shouldn't name this to its unofficial name either. Another thing: "Hurricane Bawbag" is a bit misleading too, as it connotes that the article is about a tropical cyclone, when it clearly is not. Also, I hope this does not blow up into a massive, heated discussion again; please let it remain CALM and PEACEFUL. ~ 🌀 Hurricane Covid 🌀 01:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose Hurricane Bawbag Hurricane Bawbag is an unofficial name, not AN OFFICIAL name.  Mario Jump  83!  01:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , please reference the Wikipedia policy or guideline that states we are only allowed to use official names. You may wish to see Official names and Article titles, which I'll quote from here: Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used - that is a project policy which is a project-wide consensus that cannot be overridden by a local "opinion" consensus here. If you (and User:HurricaneCovid for that matter) cannot explain how your !votes are in compliance with that policy, then your !votes should both be discounted as clearly against project-wide consensus on a policy matter. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Very weak support Okay. Hurricane Bawbag is the WP:COMMONNAME, but we have to be more consistent here. If this were to be moved to said title, then February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm should be moved into Winter Storm Uri. I'll start up a second RM if this is were to be moved.  Mario Jump  83!  06:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally, I can see a case that this article should be at "Hurricane Bawbag" but not move that article to Uri. While some sources use Uri as the name, many of them don't name it at all and just refer to it as the "winter storm" or similar. That being said, I don't think it'd be a bad idea to revisit that too evaluating use in sources. This one seems pretty clear cut to me - much much clearer common name here than with the Uri article. While consistency is great, we don't need it - and that's part of the problem with the "official names only" argument is that it puts a false consistency above common name-ness and reader understandability. Note that Wikipedia has tons of "inconsistencies" - hell, for articles without a very strong dialect tie, any variety of English is acceptable, and there's articles about very similar topics that use very different English variations in their names and their article text itself. I think the consistency needed is that arguments that "it's not the official name" need to be looked past as irrelevant in article title discussions - not just here, but it seems that weather related articles have a problem with that in general. So long as we consistently correctly apply the policies, it isn't necessarily a problem if two different articles result in two different outcomes for their title - because each one will have its own nuances and may not have a "common name" that overrules the "official" name. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 06:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Bawbag per above. ~ AC5230  talk  01:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - using the word "hurricane" here bothers me as clearly this is not a tropical cyclone. This seems to fall outside the other arguments as it is potentially misleading to readers. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * At the end of the day - the term Hurricane is not limited to tropical cyclones in the Atlantic or North Pacific and nor should it be, per the Beaufort Scale.Jason Rees (talk) 02:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * By definition, hurricanes are tropical cyclones. The storm in question here is an Extratropical cyclone. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 02:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said the term is not limited to just tropical cyclones in the Atlantic or North Pacific and nor should it be per the Beaufort Scale which uses the term Hurricane for the wind.Jason Rees (talk) 02:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment, the Beaufort scale does not actually refer to extratropical cyclones as "hurricanes"; the term it uses is "hurricane-force", which is not the same as "hurricane". ~ 🌀 Hurricane Covid 🌀 13:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You are splitting hairs over what I said there and my point was that the term hurricane is not reserved to just tropical systems in the North Pacific or the North Atlantic. As a result, I firmly belive that we should respect what the community decided within the various requested moves and keep it to Hurricane Bawbag!Jason Rees (talk) 13:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Bawbag - Hurricane Bawbag was the most common name and contrary to what people believe the FU Berlin name isn't as official as some are making out.Jason Rees (talk) 02:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose Any Name. Extratropical cyclone naming does not exist, not until the World Meteorological Organization gets involved.  So a neutral name for this article should be applied.  As an example, a storm from the same year in Alaska: November 2011 Bering Sea cyclone.  For this, it should be December 2011 North Atlantic cyclone. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 02:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, extratropical cyclone naming does exist. Both UKMET and Meteo France name European windstorms, which are extratropical. Also, FU Berlin names almost every low pressure that ever forms. While it doesn't exist in the U.S., extratropical cyclone naming does exist in other parts of the world. ~ 🌀 Hurricane Covid 🌀 13:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Bawbag – I support keeping the article as is, per reasoning of others here. United States Man (talk) 04:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)]
 * Keeping it as is would be a move back to Bawbag per the consensus established above.Jason Rees (talk) 13:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Obviously I mean keep the current title as it is now. You know what I meant. United States Man (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes I knew what you meant but it is important for you and other editors to realise that your vote keeping the article at Friedhelm, means that you want to breach WP:Common Name and override the title that was established by the community over several discussions just because it wasn't a hurricane.Jason Rees (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

was sconsensus established over several discussions 3 sep to realise that your support vote for Friedhelm means that keeping the name
 * Strong Oppose Bawbag – We should use the official name, and Bawbag isn't really a popular nickname excluding the Scots, and I seriously can't believe we are still having debates over this. ~~ 🌀𝚂𝙲𝚂 𝙲𝙾𝚁𝙾𝙽𝙰🌀 12:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Friedhelm was not an official name per say while Bawbag was a popular nickname for this system throughout the UK which more than satisfies the requirements for WP:Common Name as determined by the community in the Requested Moves above.Jason Rees (talk) 13:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess you're right, although "Hurricane Bawbag" is really misleading as LightandDark2000 mentioned, as this was clearly not a hurricane, so I believe Friedhelm is the better name. ~~ 🌀𝚂𝙲𝚂 𝙲𝙾𝚁𝙾𝙽𝙰🌀 15:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes it wasn't a hurricane but that does not make the title misleading especially since we can not keep the hurricane title to just Atlantic and North Pacific tropical cyclones when some TC's impacting Fiji have been called hurricanes.Jason Rees (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but those storms impacting Fiji were TC's, this storm was not. ~~ 🌀𝚂𝙲𝚂 𝙲𝙾𝚁𝙾𝙽𝙰🌀 19:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes it wasn't a TC for all we know but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't have the title when it is the most common name as determined by the community in previous requested moves is Hurricane Bawbag.Jason Rees (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not the most common name outside Europe, which is why "Hurricane" Bawbag is misleading, it will cause someone to think that this was a hurricane. We need to be more universal instead of a certain area when considering WP:COMMONNAME. ~~ 🌀𝚂𝙲𝚂 𝙲𝙾𝚁𝙾𝙽𝙰🌀 19:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , if the general public and reliable sources are wrong, it's not our job to fix them. If they're calling it a "hurricane" when it's not technically one, that's not our job to fix. The notion that we must ignore policies because of a technicality like this is bordering on disruptive, tendentious, and battleground behavior by multiple people here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR. ~~ 🌀𝚂𝙲𝚂 𝙲𝙾𝚁𝙾𝙽𝙰🌀 20:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The use of "official names only, even when the public more commonly calls it something else" does not improve the encyclopedia - it actually makes it harder for readers to understand - and IAR does not apply. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR does not give us clearance to ignore the previous consensus and call this article Cyclone Friedhelm, just because someone could think that it could be a hurricane.Jason Rees (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Read my comment below. ~~ 🌀𝚂𝙲𝚂 𝙲𝙾𝚁𝙾𝙽𝙰🌀 20:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * How do you know that Hurricane Bawbag isn't the most common name for this system outside Europe? I think that just because this system wasn't a hurricane and it could be misleading is an extremely poor reason to ignore the most common name of the system especially when the article makes it clear that the system wasn't a hurricane. I will also note that the article was at Bawbag until randomly decided to move it against the community consensus yesterday.Jason Rees (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, the name was at Friedhelm until someone moved it to Bawbag against consensus a month ago. ~ 🌀 Hurricane Covid 🌀 19:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Have a closer look at the discussions in the archive and the page logs. The consensus was for Bawbag and it stayed that way until decided to move it to Friedhelm against the consensus on December 21, 2019. This move was then reverted back to Bawbag on May 26, 2020 by  citing the previous consensus, before  decided to move it back to Friedhelm on October 11, 2020. However this was reverted by  on March 29, 2021 before  decided to move it back yesterday. Therefore i maintain my position that it should go back to Bawbag, since that was what the community decided the name of this article should be based on Common Name.Jason Rees (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That consensus was years ago, long before some of us joined. ~~ 🌀𝚂𝙲𝚂 𝙲𝙾𝚁𝙾𝙽𝙰🌀 20:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes I am well aware of that and the fact that consensus can change but so far there have been no valid arguments made to signify that the consensus has changed.Jason Rees (talk) 20:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There's also a matter of consistency, as LightandDark2000 mentioned. ~~ 🌀𝚂𝙲𝚂 𝙲𝙾𝚁𝙾𝙽𝙰🌀 20:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia can not really be consistent with what it calls things, as sometimes a name will really catch on and stick like this one did! Jason Rees (talk) 20:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Based on this discussion, consensus has changed, and you seem to be in the minority here. You voiced your opinion, but it doesn't agree with others. United States Man (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , no, it hasn't. What we have here is not a consensus that is valid. What we have here is a bunch of people who are, for some unknown reason, ignoring project-wide consensus of the WP:ARTICLETITLES policy to attempt to argue that only "official names" are appropriate for titles - which is in fact in direct contravention of that project wide consensus. A local "consensus" or agreement between editors does not override a project-wide consensus - and thus even if 100 editors all come to support Cyclone Friedhelm as the name because it's "official", that does not make their position a consensus view because it flies in the face of policy. Note that IAR has been invoked - but IAR must be a clear improvement, and given that there's a project wide consensus which says that official names aren't necessary, it's clear that an official name isn't a clear and meaningful improvement - thus those rules cannot be ignored. Consensus isn't about numbers - period - it's about strength of arguments and the strength of arguments for "Friedhelm" is virtually nil, compared to the strength of arguments both now and 9 years ago being very strong and in line with project-wide consensus and policy. TLDR: No, consensus hasn't changed, as evidenced by the fact that the policy pages still say virtually the same thing they did back then, and the arguments being presented for "Friedhelm" are in direct contravention of larger project-wide consensus. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Numerous editors agreeing on a topic with only a couple dissenters is in fact a consensus. I have never been part of a move discussion that wasn't allowed to sway the way of the majority simply because "it wasn't that way before" or "that's not what we said X years ago in this discussion 'here'". So sorry, not getting your argument. United States Man (talk) 01:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , you may wish to review the links I put - specifically to WP:CONLEVEL, which makes it clear that arguments that are contradictory to a project-wide policy consensus are not valid arguments for a "local consensus". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I maybe in the minority for keeping it at Hurricane Bawbag, but we have to remember that this discussion is not a vote. As a result, I do not see that the consensus has changed when no one has yet presented any valid arguments for why we should ignore Wikipedia policies and the consensus that was established on this article several years ago. However, there is now a WP:RM set up which should have set up before moving the article and will enable an outsider to come and determine if your arguments hold any weight. Spoiler Alert: They dont.Jason Rees (talk) 01:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * We're not voting. Several here have presented valid reasons, including the winter storm naming fiasco from a few months ago. So it order to be in line with that, we should use Friedhelm and not Bawbag. The only arguments I've gotten against Friedhelm are "it's supposed to be this way" and "but project policy!!!!". That same project decided against using the TWC names, so the "policy" is ambiguous and irrelevant at this point. That's all I've got to say. United States Man (talk) 01:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The so-called reasons are not valid for the reasons that I have presented above, including the fact that Wikipedia uses the most common name which in this case is Hurricane Bawbag and the fact that the title was stable at Bawbag until decided to move it against the consensus established in previous RM's. Wikipedia policy allows us to use unofficial names when it is the most common name like for example Bill Clinton is at Bill Clinton and not William Jefferson Clinton. Jason Rees (talk) 02:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

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.
 * Oppose on renaming. This is a tricky case, as the name "Bawbag" was certainly used a lot both contemporaneously and afterward. I wonder how much of that spreading is that the unofficial name is an insult, and a bit of a meme. Let's discuss the criteria for article titles: Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, Consistency. I'd say Bawbag is certainly recognizable, and both titles are precise and concise. Re: naturalness, because the name is a slur, I think it should be at "Friedhelm", and because of consistency, the article should remain at "cyclone", and not "hurricane", since it was not a tropical hurricane like most hurricane articles are. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 17:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not see why we should limit the term Hurricane to just tropical systems as it is not a unique term, as evidenced by the fact that this system was most commonly named Hurricane Bawbag and not just by the media. We also have to remember that historically tropical cyclones impacting Fiji or Maurtius have been named hurricanes, which further prooves that the term is not unique. It was the most common term for the ssytem at the time and was used around the world for the severe weather expierenced in Scotland, because of the conditions expierenced werent brilliant and thus is natural for Scots who remember this system. I also fear that we are making a rods for our own backs by limiting the usage of the term hurricane to just tropical systems, as the media will use the term hurricane even if we dont like it. We also are not here to right great wrongs.Jason Rees (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I would agree with Hurricanehink here. ~~ 🌀𝚂𝙲𝚂 𝙲𝙾𝚁𝙾𝙽𝙰🌀 19:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think naturalness relates to the "slurness" of the name - and we have articles such as Nigger (dog) which are at names that are slurs when there could potentially be another name. Obviously the name was "natural enough" in the general population for news media and the general population to use the name Bawbag very frequently. I thank you for at least trying to evaluate based on article title criteria, but I think your analysis lends itself to naming the article Bawbag. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Strongly Support using Hurricane Bawbag There was strong and clear consensus that this name was the correct one. It was moved to Cyclone Friedhelm against that consensus. As such the default and correct name for this page is Bawbag. Whilst consensus can change this move request should be taking place due to that consensus at page Hurricane Bawbag, the move request is severly screwed up. Hurricane Bawbag is the common name and sources are clearly available to prove that. Blethering  Scot  19:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)