Talk:Kyrill (storm)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Page move?

I see that the article is at Kyrill (storm), to which Kyrill redirects. But wouldn't it be better to swap the two around: the article at Kyrill with Kyrill (storm) as a redirect? AecisBravado 21:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

That should be the subject of further research, apparently there's a saint called Kyrill or something like that. There also is a disambiguation page at Cyril. The redirect was just created ad hoc to point people to the current event. Anyhow, WP:NC should probably be consulted first, I personally think it's fine with the way things are.--doco (☏) 21:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
See Special:Allpages/Kyrill. There are three articles beginning with Kyrill: this one, Kyrill, Prince of Preslav and Kyrill (Yonchev). AecisBravado 00:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I've made Kyrill into a disambiguation page. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 14:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge w/ North American ice storm of 2007??

This was the same system as the North American ice storm of 2007. Since it is the standards of the WikiProject to keep the same system on one article, should this be merged? (Although this is a very good article as it is) CrazyC83 23:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the discussion has already begun on their talk page. Pop over thataway. samwaltz 00:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Separate articles seems to be what is needed, from the discussion over there, so I've removed the merge tag and put the ice storm in the see also section. Someone should add something if the storms are linked. Carcharoth 10:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
If they are the same, why does neither article mention that? Jamie|C 20:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Because it was something completely different. It was not ice, not North America and not the same depression. --88.76.207.132 21:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article name

My problem with this article name applies to all named European windstorms so I've raised the issue on WikiProject Meteorology. To summarize that in the context of this article:

  1. Kyrill is a name assigned by the German met agency and is not official.
  2. The name is only really used by the Germans; other national press from affected countries and international press do not use it.
  3. This is the English wikipedia, so the English common-use name should be used, as the UK does not refer to it by Kyrill we shouldn't (the Germans can and should use Kyrill).

This also makes a merger with the North American Ice storm feasible; as it can be put at a descriptive article title - with this page as a redirect.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Polish media use the name Kyrill or Cyryl as well, saying that this is the way used in Western European media. Patek 03:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The Quebec news network LCN (Francophone source only) is also using the name Cyril for the storm, [1]JForget 04:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC) Name Kyrill is used in the Czech Republic too.[2] Monika_46

The name Kyrill was also mentioned in a BBC news report, but either way, it is an unofficial, German name. A more generic, descriptive title for the article should probably be chosen. But which one? European windstorm of January 2007 is ambiguous because there already was a severe storm that affected Sweden and Norway (named Per (storm) by the Norwegian meteorological office). Oghmoir 09:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

"Kyrill" is also used in Austria and Switzerland. —Nightstallion (?) 10:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

... as well as in France:fr:Kyrill_(tempête) and Le calme revient après la tempête Kyrill. It is an official name. --213.155.224.232 10:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Its not official. The WMO (or a WMO-designated body) is the only organisation that can officially name; the relevant organisation in this case is the UK Met. The German name is for use in Germany (though other nations may pick up on it).--Nilfanion (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

As this argument applies for all European windstorms, they should either all be labelled, or the tag removed frone this one. I'm removing it for now, as the right place to discuss a mass-renaming is at the Meteorology WikiProject mentioned above. Carcharoth 10:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Surely what's most important is which name is best-known. For example, the great storm of January 1990 became known as the Burns' Day Storm, and has been known as such ever since the name stuck. Although the UK media aren't really using the name "Kyrill", they're not calling it anything else. So "Kyrill" should suffice for now at least. Pobbie Rarr 15:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I strongly suspect that this storm will get a common name in the UK due to its significance. However, Kyrill is inappropriate as principle-of-least-sueprise should be used and a descriptive name should be used. This storm is not referred to as such in the UK (or the States or any other English speaking nation) as this is the English wiki we should reflect that reality (but acknowledge the German name in the article). Oh and I think the Burns' Day Storm should have a year in its page title...--Nilfanion (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Some media in the English speaking world call it Kyril. For example, [3], [4], [5]. It is the most popular name for it at the moment. If and when another name takes over then we should rename the article but in the absense of that, we should stick with Kyril. 203.109.240.93 17:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Under no circumstances do I call the Sun a reliable source here ;) In any case by far the most popular way of referring to it in the english-speaking world is as a (series of) violent storms; ie unnamed.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
how about cnn for a reliable source? http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/01/18/germany.storm.reut/index.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.175.115.224 (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
Thats a source that says the Germans call it Kyrill not that the storm is Kyrill; big difference in those two concepts. And as it calls it a Hurricane...--Nilfanion (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The issue is not whether the Sun is a reliable source IMHO but whether the storm is referred to as Kyrill in the English media, which it is. While you may be right about the unnamed part, as it is a current even they don't need to have a name or way to refer to it. However as an encyclopaedia, we do. The reality is there is no other suitable name at this current time. This may change over time. I also disagree that we should simply be concerned about the UK. This event has affected quite a large number of people throughout Europe. As such, it is of interest to people throughout the world. English speaking people in Germany and apparently in a number of other continential European countries apparently refer to it as Kyrill. So do English speaking people in a number of other non-European countries. The UK has no monopoly on the English language. The fact that this even has affected the UK means we should consider the UK along with the other countries, but we need to consider the English speaking world in general 203.109.240.93 09:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
You are missing the point here. We do need a way to refer to this storm, that is true, but why does that mean we have to use Kyrill? For our purposes there is nothing wrong with using January 18, 2007 European windstorm. That unambiguously describes the storm and someone who knows of this storm will know what the article refers to, whether they know it by this name or not. The majority of international media articles regarding this storm don't use the name, though there are exceptions, and the only nations in which Kyrill is invariably used are Germany and its neighbours. As such Kyrill is not widely used and a descriptive page name is superior.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Low and high pressure areas affecting Europe are usually named by the Free University of Berlin (like Hurricans are named by US authorties). The problem is that the Kyrill low pressure system existed January 17, January 19, January 20... so let's take January European windstorm... ehmm... which one? There is a name! So why blurring? Geo-Loge 11:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
There is a big difference in how hurricanes are named as to how low pressure areas are named. See the discussion on the wikiproject please.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
The ways and systems of naming may differ but not the fact that widely used names are given to meteorological events. Geo-Loge 11:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
What I'm saying is the US may name hurricanes, but those names are preselected by all nations and are then used by all nations. The FU Berlin names aren't used in the UK, France, the Netherlands, Norway... This means they aren't widely used, except in the German-speaking world (I have no problem with de:Kyrill (Orkan) being at that location).--Nilfanion (talk) 11:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
To cite Reuters: "The Kyrill storm is the most damaging to hit the United Kingdom since January 1990 and the biggest headache for German insurers since the Lothar storm buffeted the country in 1999, an industry expert said." Hmm.. seems like the Germans took over Reuters.. Geo-Loge 11:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Umm, Reuters don't actually use it in their own content for the most part. Look at the comment beneath this, Yorkshiresky is a professional meteorlogist and "none of the staff had heard this term". More to the point find me a single non-German source that refers to Lancelot (which formed the day after Kyrill).--Nilfanion (talk) 12:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Reuters used the term! So let's go back to the alternatives: Name it January 18, 2007 European windstorm is very confusing due to the storm was active for a couple of days. Name it January 2007 European windstorm is not explicit because there are at least three storms in January 2007. The best way is to name it January 17 to January 21 extratropical cyclone in Europe. This would be a great joke esspecially in the context of former storms like Lothar (storm) or Anatol or Erwin (storm). You are fighting wind mills in storms, aren't you? Geo-Loge 12:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) Umm, I object to all of these names. Not ONE of them is commonly known by these name outside of Germany, unlike Hurricane Ernesto (2006) which was known by that name globally. Yes sources outside Germany will pick them up, but for every news article you can find in the US referring to Kyrill by the name, you will find 100 that refer to it but don't use the name. The January 18 name has precedent, these storms are typically referred to by the day of impact in the UK (cf the Burns' Day storm); it isn't ambiguous really. Besides Lothar (storm) is very bad stylistically (not least as Lothar is used regularly).--Nilfanion (talk) 12:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you really believe that anyone outside the UK can refer to a storm by the impact in the UK? Maybe headlines could name the event "Killer storm" or "heavy storm" or what ever! The question is: How to refer this event practicable in 6 months or in 2 years. So please give an alternative to the name given by the FU Berlin and the DWD. And at least: How to name extratropical cyclones consistent in the english wikipedia that do not impact in the UK? Geo-Loge 12:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Nope its not predictable. However, referring to this storm by Kyrill is as bad as, and possible worse than, referring to the Burns' Day storm as such. That storm was known as such in the UK, Kyrill is known as such in Germany. However this is the English wikipedia so how things are named in the UK is of more significance than that in Germany if the effects are comparable. On the German wiki things can and should be reversed. And please look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Meteorology#List, that gives NPOV names which are much more consistent with other similar articles.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Please watch the response to your proposals: No body can refer to such events by date! If there are two events in just a short period anyone would be able to find the "right" event by lemma like "date when coast of nation x was impacted"! This is completely unpracticable. The second disadvantage is that such storms are active for a couple of days. Their behavior is strongly influenced by conditions in the Atlantic, in the North Sea in the Baltic Sea and so on. Please give examples of the other similar articles. And please give an example of a lemma in this case. Note that European windstorm or central European windstorm is incorret. The right term is extratropical cyclone. And name it January 19, extratropical cyclone in Europe does not make sense because there were a couple of extratropical cyclones active in Europe. Please note also, that Kyrill does not refer to a storm but to a low pressure area! Geo-Loge 13:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
And this article is about the storm. That is the most obvious argument to not use Kryill in this context...--Nilfanion (talk) 14:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Storm is just a characteristic or state of a low pressure area in context of other high pressure areas and its difference in pressure. The lowest pressure is another characteristic of a low pressure area while speed of winds are charecteristics of the storm. Geo-Loge 14:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
The definition of the lemma is: "Kyrill (IPA: ['kɪrɪl]) is the name given to a low pressure area that evolved into a violent European windstorm, forming an extratropical cyclone with hurricane-strength winds." I hardly understand your argumentation. Your way would be "January 19, European Windstorm was a low pressure area, forming an extratropical cyclone with hurricane-strength winds."? Geo-Loge 14:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • sigh* If this change was implemented the lead would read COMPLETELY differently, like in 2007 North American ice storm. It would start something like "The January 18 2007, European windstorm was a severe storm that affected a wide swathe of northern Europe." This is a much better lead sentence than is currently in article - substitute Kryill into my sentence and it is far superior to how the current text reads.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Even if the introduction would be completely changed and focused on the storm characteristics of this low presure area, there are also a couple of other characteristics of the Kyrill low presure system like heavy rain that are just weakly influenced by wind speeds. European windstorm would not fit the hole meteorological event like a synonym of an extratropical cyclone does. If you look at a surface weather analysis with isobares you will see that the Kyrill low presure system had a couple of stream areas (for example with strong winds in a corridore above the german low mountain ranges eastwards to Poland) and the stream corridore on the North and Baltic Sea. So there are at least two streams of stormy wind around the low presure system: Which one is the European Windstorm? Your lemma is not exact, is not explicit and does not include the complete meteorological event. Geo-Loge 16:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Umm, read European windstorm please. It is clear that Kryill is indeed a European windstorm according to the definition of this term; so the above title is explicit. The scope of Hurricane Katrina is from the formation of precursor tropical depression to the absorption of the extratropical remnant, so "Hurricane Katrina" doesn't cover the whole life of the system - something like AL122005 (tropical cyclone) would be more precise. Anyway, I'm going to try and step back from this farce over the naming, things will calm down a lot when this is no longer current (and not on the main page). Wherever this article was, in its current form it is in need of major cleanup.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Again: Kyrill is first of all a cyclone that evolved into an European windstorm. So what you try to do is to exclude a part of the meteorological phenomenon. The European windstorm that you will see as lemma does not cover the hole life cycle that is now descriped under this lemma. Geo-Loge 17:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
And "Hurricane Katrina" is not the full phenomenon there, that doesn't stop us using that name to cover the whole thing...--Nilfanion (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay: Hurricans are tropical cyclones, right? This article is about an extratropical cyclone, right? The article Hurrican Katrina covers the hole evolving of this cyclone up to the category 5 hurrican, right? And the lemma is not Hurrican Katrina in category 5 state, right? What you try to do by focusing on the European windstorm state is nothing else than focusing on the category 5 state of a hurrican. At least there is one problem: Any authorities declares whether or when a extratropical cyclone is an European windstorm like tropical cyclones are categorised. I think that the term European windstorm at all is very weak defined: The german correspondent orcan low pressure area would be found unencyclopedic because there are any hard criteria defined. Geo-Loge 17:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Hurricane Katrina covers the whole history of that system. This includes the period when "Hurricane Katrina" did not exist, because it was "Tropical Depression 12" at that time. Likewise Hurricane Agnes had its most significant effects as a Tropical Storm (and not a hurricane). "Hurricane" means something different to "Tropical Storm", yet both portions are within the scope of an article on a hurricane. The scope of Hurricane Katrina covers of that system when it was a Category 5, Category 4, Category 3, Category 2 and Category 1 Hurricane AND when it was a "Tropical Storm", "Tropical Depression" and "Extratropical remnant".--Nilfanion (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
And when was the "unnamed extratropical cyclone" just an extratropical cyclone and when has it become an European windstorm? At all this will not clear the question how to clearly identify a cyclone or an European windstorm (as state of a cyclone). Geo-Loge 18:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest renaming and putting a redirect from Kyrill (storm). It may be used in Continental Europe but in the UK and Ireland which English Wikipedia is most widely read (and no doubt elsewhere) that nomenclature is more or less unknown. I work at a weather office in the UK and none of the staff had heard this term until checking it out from the wikipedia main page. In the future, the name will be generally forgotten and people will be looking for January 18th 2007 storm or something similar. Yorkshiresky 17:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

As well, if the name is kept I would suggest the title convention be European Windstorm Kyrill, to be in line with Tropical Storm Alpha, Hurricane Katrina, etc. Radagast 20:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats better than Kyrill (storm) but obviously would need further consideration.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Ehem... under no circumstance WP makes the name, it uses names other made. --213.155.224.232 23:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Re The Burns' Day storm. No need for a year at all in the title, it is simply referred to by everyone in the UK as the "Burns' Day Storm." The lowest pressure on this article is a little suspect by the way. I recorded a low of 986hPa myself. The lowest I saw this analysed by the Met Office was 962hPa. I can't see this storm getting a name in the UK, the one on the 30th October 2000 was pretty bad and didn't.

Where has this term "European Windstorm" come from by the way? The only time I've ever come across it in the UK is with the insurance industry rather than the meteorological community. P.K. 23:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe there is some precedent for the current name, per Erwin (storm), Lothar (storm) and Per (storm), but I would prefer a rename to European Windstorm Kyrill. The common naming pattern in similar categories seems to be <type of weather event> <name associated with the event>. AecisBravado 11:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, if we keep them at these names (which I disagree but that's an aside), X (storm) is bad stylistically; there are better ways of phrasing this.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I've put up requests for comments at WP:NC and WP:RFC. The way I currently see the discussion, this is a bit of a borderline case, as there's differing opinions between editors who want to use the de facto name and editors who want to use the WP:METEO convention. Given that WP:NC says "use common English name where available, and it has been said that there is no "common" English name for this storm, further input from experienced editors might be helpful. --doco (☏) 15:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no name for this storm in the UK so Kyrill even if it is only used in germany is the closest there is to a common name.Geni 15:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The null-name is the name in the UK. Therefore a generic descriptive name best matches the UK experience.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Of course, the UK is not the entire English-speaking world. The article should be given the name under which English speakers (not just the British) are most likely to look for it. I don't think we know yet what that is, so a renaming would be premature at this point. And the disadvantage of "generic descriptive names" is that they can be phrased in many different ways, making the article more difficult for readers to find. Do I look under European windstorm of 18 January 2007, or European windstorm of 18-19 January 2007, or European windstorm of January 18, 2007, or European windstorm of January 18-19, 2007, or 18 January 2007 European windstorm, or... Not one of those is a good article name. --Tkynerd 15:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Yep, generic names have that problem I agree. However, that is what redirects are for. You would find these articles by a search anyway: Kyrill (storm) is not the first thing that would spring to mind either is it? Either that or links from relevant articles, which would be free to use descriptive names in links. This is most similar to general meteorology wikiproject practice on these storms. And I agree UK != English-speaking world, but in this case the States, Australia and so on also use no formal name; so are in the same position.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, except no for several reasons. You've been given citations to show that American media are using the name Kyrill, at least in some cases. Again, I just don't think we know yet what the right name for this article will turn out to be. There's no need to rename it without knowing that. I refer to this, especially the part that says: When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine? At this point, we simply do not know the answer to that question, and there is no point in renaming the article until we do. --Tkynerd 15:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that international media have used Kyrill in some cases (the British media has too), but the overwhelming majority do not. That's true, however I suspect a British readers search term looking for this storm would not include "Kyrill" but include things like "storm", "January 2007" and so on. I suggest this discussion is kept to the project talk page, there are 5 storms in question here.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
The odds of them hitting the right combo useing that method are pretty much zilch. at least with Kyrill some people will be able to find it.Geni 15:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and unfortunately the Wikipedia search function is largely useless. A Google search on relevant terms finds Kyrill (storm) right away anyway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tkynerd (talk • contribs) 15:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC).
All media called the event occuring in the US 2006 Thanksgiving Nor'easter while WP renamed it to Late November 2006 Nor'easter. You won't find any links outside Wikipedia using that term. That's ridiculous. --213.155.224.232 18:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Stay on topic please; that has ZERO relevancy to this article.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
It is on topic, because it shows how sometimes in EN:WP names are made up, independent of if they're commonly used or not. So it HAS relevancy to this. --213.155.224.232 19:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

While discussing the usage of the storm name in English speaking countries remember that some adopted the name to the English version "Cyril" (eg Australia, Ireland, U.K., India. --88.76.207.132 18:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's the historic description why and how hows and highs are named by the Deutsche Wetterdienst [6]: This practice has been well established for over 50 years and maintaining it is requested not only by the German Weather Service or by the commercial service providers but also, by the public. Apart from the US-Weather Service, the Institute of Meteorology is the only source for named vortices worldwide. --213.155.224.232 18:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a pretty good article. -newkai t-c 22:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please calm down

Please calm down, people, and keep a cool head. It seems that the storm/extratropical cyclone/European windstorm is wreaking as much havoc on this talk page as in the real world. Noone will be hurt if the discussion lasts a day longer and the article remains here a day longer. And noone will be hurt if the article is moved to another name. Remember that you're arguing over a bunch of pixels. AecisBravado 18:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Good idea ;) I got myself really worked up for some personal reasons relating to this storm (I'd prefer not to say what they are), which is why my actions have contributed to this WP:LAME level conflict.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey folks, yeah, I'm joining in with this plea. Let's try and remain considerate, no need in getting ironic over any of this... such a disruptive event has already caused lots of distress, and some if not many of us editors may still worry about those we care for, and regard for the readers goes without saying. Let's stay cool. Thanks! and cheers - Introvert • ~ 21:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Numbers

34 in infobox, 35 in the article and 33 in Wikinews. Which is the true number of casualties? Deliogul 12:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the number of UK deaths to 11, as reported on BBC news 24, therefore raising the number to 36 on the article. Chris as I am Chris 14:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I have added the two confirmed Belgian casualties to the list by country. The total in the header still reads 36- but the list adds up to 40. Should I change this?

[edit] Wind speed

There are two different values of maximum wind speed on the top of Snieżka presented, 212 and 216 km/h, NEEDS CHECKING. Moreover someone wrote that 216km/h is the highest speed ever recorded there - NOT TRUE - the highest wind speeds are: 228km/h (average), 288km/h (gusts), Polish speaking users can check it out at http://pogpol.chilan.com/rekordy.htm --Domikot 13:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NOAA Image

Powerful storm batters Northern Europe with rain and winds gusting to 70 knots (81 mph, 130 km/h). Meteo France are predicting winds to reach nearly 78 knots (90 mph, 145 km/h) in the Calais area, while Germany may experience winds up to 87 knots (100 mph, 161 km/h) in more exposed parts as reported by CNN and BBC Weather news. The numbers on the image reepresent wind gust in knots.
Powerful storm batters Northern Europe with rain and winds gusting to 70 knots (81 mph, 130 km/h). Meteo France are predicting winds to reach nearly 78 knots (90 mph, 145 km/h) in the Calais area, while Germany may experience winds up to 87 knots (100 mph, 161 km/h) in more exposed parts as reported by CNN and BBC Weather news. The numbers on the image reepresent wind gust in knots.

Here is a PD NOAA image of the storm system over the North Sea. Consider working it into the article. Edit as needed. Hope this is helpful. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 14:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note 11.

Does anyone know where this citation has gone? Sorry, but as I was organising the categories I noticed that Note 11 doesn't have anything other then two statements are using it as a citation.--Skully Collins Edits 16:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bolding

Why are all the countries in bold in the latter sections of this article? Manderiko 16:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split by country?

I'd suggest that the article needs to be tidied up as follows. a. introduction b overview of meteorological situation and history of the storm c. split effects into different countries rather than different sectors. d. extremes across different areas affected. Yorkshiresky 18:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oil

Can someone add that 1.7 million litres of oil were leaked in the Rotterdam Harbor? I don't really know how to write it and it got caused by Kyrill. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Camou (talk • contribs) 23:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

The ship that was abandoned in the English channel also leaked a spill about 100m x 5km if i recall correctly. RHB Talk - Edits 23:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Specific mentioning of a leading manager among the casulties is poor moral standard compared to anonymous victims

There is no reason whatever to mention one victim specifically because of his job, while keeping all others anonymous. It is ok, to link the news as a reference, as well as linking from the wikipage of the manager (if any) to the storm and mentioning he died there. But he should not be treated as anything special in a list of statistics - as you know, all man should be treated equal and none more equal than the others.

Tp1024 23:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Notability is asserted by being the first casualty of the storm. Naming victims is common practice in the UK. --doco (☏) 00:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't actually name the person so its not too bad. However, this is an encyclopedia not a news article, so the description of his death should be trimmed significantly in that light "the first victim died at 645 when a tree fell onto his car" is all that needs to be said.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Nilfanion. While I don't see any particular moral problem with the original description, it's too much detail for an encyclopedia article -- it belongs in a news report. --Tkynerd 01:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
If and when the facts and figures on the numerous victims and damages have settled down properly, it might probably be an idea to see if an seperate article on damages and casualties may be in order. Descriptions like "the 49-year old manager of Birmingham airport", "a 78-year old (was it Yorkshire? I think so) pensioner", "a 30-something fireman of the Viersen fire department" et cetera shouldn't be overdone in a seperate article, though I have to admit that might clutter the sections a bit when left in the main article. Let's see how things develop over the weekend, when the storm will literally settle down. --doco (☏) 01:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
That would be non-encyclopedic as WP not a memorial and that article should not exist.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
That section of WP:NOT is explaining why articles whose purpose is to memorialize otherwise non-notable people should not be written. Another section of the page says that it may be appropriate to mention otherwise non-notable people in articles on other subjects to which those people are relevant. --Tkynerd 15:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I was replying to "an seperate article on damages and casualties may be in order." That is precisely what WP:NOT describes.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Original

The 'original was first called Europe's January Storms, yet people disregarded this page and somewhat subsequently renamed it and deleted my history. Ok it was a long name but...Is this fair?. I firstly think it as done because I am seen as stupid because I am a High School student, but surely age doesn't matter. For what would the world and information be like around our world if it was not for people who are younger than 18! Brylcreem2 --Brylcreem2 12:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually you developed the article independently (this article was in existence before you started to work). The best thing for you to do is merge your content into this article.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article has been vandalised

This article has been vandalised by 132.73.80.97, 15:40, 19 January 2007, changing the lowest pressure from < 964.8 hPa to ridiculous < 998.5 hPa. This has been corrected now. --88.76.207.132 10:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] German-centric

The article appears to be a bit German-centric, even though almost the whole of Europe was affected. Can't we make it a bit more neutral? --81.152.178.228 12:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this, even the name of the article reflects that. Things will begin to tidy up once this is no longer a current event and the pruning of content can be done.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
The "Public transport" is german-centric due to the break down of almost the complete german railway network. Other chapters are uniform distributed (for example the chapter of "casualties and fatalities"). Lemma is under discussion: Name it by the impact in the UK would not be more neutral. Geo-Loge 13:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
The systematic bias comes from the very biased coverage on de.wiki. The UK information is pretty bad too actually, it goes into too much detail in places.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
That bias probably comes the fact that of the 95 to 110 million native German speakers, 82 million live in Germany! -newkai t-c 22:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Let's calm down... there is no unjustified german-centric (which would be an overemphasis of casualties for example) to found. Geo-Loge 23:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name given to?

I'm not too thrilled about the first sentence of the article. It currently reads "Kyrill ... is the name given to a low pressure area that evolved into a violent European windstorm, ..." The part about "the name given to" is unnecessary: if the article says that "Kyrill is a low-pressure area etc.", then it's obvious that Kyrill is the name that was given to that low pressure area etc. Removing the words doesn't change anything, but it does improve the readability of the sentence. AecisBravado 15:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Be bold and fix it. A better phrasing is available above "Kryille (IPA) is/was a severe European windstorm that affected a wide swathe of Europe in January 2007 is a fair sentence.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Four pictures of fallen trees in Manchester

Well yeah. Section header says it all. Four pictures of basically the same thing is a bit.. boring. And the pictures are of a low quality. I suggest deleting some/all of them? -- Mystman666 (Talk) 22:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup after the storm

...erm, cleaning up the article. I have moved lots of text around and tried to sort evreything under an appropriate header. Would suggest to continue that way, otherwise the article will become an unreadable mess.

Things still read a little German-centric; in particular, there is very little about effects in Eastern Europe. Would suggest to check with Wikipedians from that region, if any are interested (note: the Dutch and Polish articles seem to be rather informative - anybody for translations?).

What's lacking: info on major damages to buildings etc., as well as reports from insurances on the extent of damage.

And if there is some comprehensive report by a national weather service, I'd strongly suggest to integrate it to get the meteorological facts right. Keep eyes open please. Kosebamse 07:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have a go at a major rewrite, once this page drops out of ITN on the main page and similar. This article is a typical example of current event "cruft", it gives way too much detail on some really trivial aspects; which engenders the bias mentioned. This makes it feel like a collation of news reports rather than an encyclopedic article.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zakopane

The ski jumping event in Zakopane yesterday was overshadowed by massive storm-like winds, that got Czech ski jumper Jan Mazoch severely injured, in critical condition. Was this Kyrill as well, or was it unrelated? If it was Kyrill, should it be added to the article? AecisBravado 17:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

When it did happen? --213.155.224.232 19:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Yesterday. See Eurosport.com and ESPN. AecisBravado 20:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think so; from watching, the winds only came late in the competition, it was fairly peaceful (not good conditions for ski jumping, but nothing above breeze level.) According to this, it disturbed the qualification, but 24 hours later it ought to have blown over? Sam Vimes | Address me 22:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Weather Phenomena

At some point we will destroy the climate so much that we will destroy ourselves. I really wish we loved our grandchildren more. Is there any other relative article that deals with the damage that we have done to our planet? StevenAR 00:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

What proof do you have that this has to do with global warming? None I reckon. Pobbie Rarr 22:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Damage costs should be higher

Damage costs are currently listed as "at least 1Bn Euro". BBC News say that "Swiss Re estimated that the cost of the damage winter storm Kyrill caused across Europe could be as high as £2.3bn ($4.5bn; 3.5bn euros)."

[edit] It's end....

We know that Kyrill started of the 15th of Janurary, 2007. But, when did this strom end, and where? --Tayuke 02:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please update #France

I've added a template requesting an update to the section Kyrill (storm)#France. It currently says: "A woman in Lille is missing after the roof of a store collapsed." Is she still missing, after four months? AecisBrievenbus 23:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)