Talk:February 2009 British Isles snowfall

should this article exist?

Is this article really worthy of a page!!? 131.111.139.104 (talk)

I agree, we have at least 4 snow storms a year this big in northern North America.

Exactly. I suggest the article be merged into Winter storms of 2008–09. ~Asarlaí 18:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

True, but it's exactly because they're so common in North America that the infrastructure to cope with them exists. If Canada were experiencing a 27-year record heatwave, noone would be claiming "but we in India put up with temperatures like this for weeks at a time every year." It's the rarity IN THAT REGION that makes the event notable. 84.67.229.138 (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but last summer in the Toronto area of Canada we experienced a heat wave of 36 degrees and up with a high of 42 (all celsius) that lasted for about 4 days and no article was written about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.136.160 (talk) 02:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

True, but the vast majority of Wikipedia's traffic originates from North America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.167.165 (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You clearly misunderstand what the point of Wikipedia is. It is not a resource meant to represent the majority of its readers. It is a resource meant to represent an agglomeration of human knowledge and is meant to serve people worldwide. aremisasling (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I nominate agglomeration for world's ugliest word. TunaSushi (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Since the storm basically shut down the entire country for a week, it's notable. Even if we had a snowstorm this big 4 times already in Michigan this year. Schoop (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I was shocked to see this on the Main Page. It's a bit of snow that showed our councils to be incompetent morons. I'm far from convinced that this is sufficiently significant to be included in an encyclopaedia. -- LondonStatto (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I was searching for this article, and now i have found it, due it being on the Main Page. I think that this event is very notable to our country, even if it seems common place in N. America.Smudger94 (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not a snowstorm so the whole title is at least wrong, it's simply snowfall (not exactly heavy snowfall either). The focus should be on the lack of capability on dealing with the situation (it was well known in advance http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28972533/). Really odd this is found on the main page. Alepik (talk) 03:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ewither the person that started this thread is a troll or stupid. No reply required. RaseaC (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) As numours people have said this article is notable due to the rarity of the event (ie once every 18 years), and as Boris Johnson said on monday - the london councils arent going to buy any Snow PLoughs or anything like that as its so rare. as well as shutting down most of the UK for the week. The fact that its also dragged on from Monday to Friday and is likley to be sticking around untill at least tuesday means we will have quite a lot of Impact to shift through. All this article needs IMO is for the storm to die as well as the snow to die away so we can clean up this article and put into a suitable format. Jason Rees (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

'True, but the vast majority of Wikipedia's traffic originates from North America.' What the heck are you talking about? So we should get rid of article content that doesn't apply to or interest Americans..? Please refrain from being an igorant buffoon. Regardless of whether or not so-and-so has however times bigger storms than this, for the area that is the United Kingdom and Ireland, this is a reasonably important event and a reasonably rare event. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 19:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

In the long term, this isn't notable. It fails WP:NOT#NEWS and is therefore unencyclopedic. It's also highly Anglocentric per WP:BIAS and highly evocative of popular things being talked about per WP:RECENTISM.--Rocklin Kyley (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It's actually managed to knock the economy off the headlines today. --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 19:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It has managed to have some significant effects in areas of note - see the examples given on disruption to multiple sports events and live television broadcasts. Indeed I'm just after witnessing a report saying that the French rugby team were caught up in the mess at Dublin Airport so I'll find a source and include it as well. This affects more than one island, i.e. separate geographical entity and more than one country, i.e. separate political entity. In that case it can hardly be compared to a storm affecting, for instance, two neighbouring U.S. states (unless, for geographical reasons, one of them is Hawaii). --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 20:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

While I do see your angle on this being a violation of those policies, I don't feel it's a valid argument. If you look at the event itself, it has had marked impact that will likely be remembered by any who have gone through it long into the future. Te snowfall's magnitude itself is notable to an extent, but the extent of the impact really puts this one on the notable map. aremisasling (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Rocklin, please read policies before posing them. This article is notable and staying. End of. RaseaC (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

CWhile I agree with you, RaseaC, I'm not sure you have the authority to end the discussion. Additionally, I did read the policies referenced and I see where Rocklin is coming from, but I think it's way off base. aremisasling (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm certainly not ending the discussion, I know that it will go on for weeks yet, this is WP afterall. My point is that the overall consensus will be that the article stays, so those of us who do not wish to waste are time can accept that and go do something worthwhile. RaseaC (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment: If only all "time wasting" came to such constructive conclusions. :) --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 20:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

How is this article even considered encyclopedic? --71.246.98.127 (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

See above. RaseaC (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure it will be encyclopedic when its completed and not still ongoing and not on the Main Page/open to significant and rapid levels of vandalism. Anyway, no more new sections on this. --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 20:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I too question this article's validity, especially its "In the news" status. Hardly anyone has died as a result of the snow. Not of all England was affected - I live in the north-west and I've barely seen a drop, let alone a "snowstorm". The article is dubious and implies the country completely came to a stand-still; for an encyclopaedia, this is a ridiculous conclusion from what essentially is only a bit of 'bad weather', something which the UK is already renowned for. If this stands the test for an encyclopaedia, at least remove the tabloid-ish crap language. GW(talk) 22:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the point is the country pretty much did come to a standstill. RaseaC (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It did? Really? Baring in mind Wikipedia is NOT a place for original thought, where is the proof that the whole of north-western Europe came to a standstill? It's not so much that I don't think this is worth an article, I just think this article takes the "snowstorm" to hyperbole, which is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. People in five years time may look on this and think the country was hit by a blizzard, which it quite patently hasn't been. GW(talk) 22:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

A discussion about north-west Europe is irrelevant. Closing most major airports and a number of major road routes is enough to say the country came to a standstill. In the grand scheme of things it is probably slightly over the top, but as far as the UK is concerned it's a pretty serious event. RaseaC (talk) 22:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It's out of proportion. Yes, airports were closed... for a few hours. Railways were operational and nearly all roads were running. The buses in London didn't run for one day. So no, the country did not come to a standstill.

It's not out of proportion, considering we are talking about one of the most highly developed countries in the world which suffered from the worst snow in 25 odd years in which motorways were closed, people died and billions of pounds were lost coupled with the closing of most schools, almost all transportation in the capital (and other towns), and (whether you like it or not a lot of motorways) I would say the country did come to a standstill. RaseaC (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I just came across this article on the front page and am too wondering about if it should exist. There was a horrible ice storm in Massachusetts and New Hampshire a little more than a month ago that took out power in some areas for over 10 days, caused thousands of trees to fall blocking countless streets in Worcester, Massachusetts and Fitchburg, Massachusetts. There is no page for this storm. With the creation of this page I feel it may start a precident for other localy notable storms to have their own pages. If I wanted to start the 2008 Massachusetts ice storm article, all I would need to do is cite this page to any one that dose not think it should exist. --Found5dollar (talk) 02:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Local? We're talking about five countries here... not five states within one country. Or two cities in two states in one country as the example you've given seems to involve.--➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 02:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I get that nations are separate entities, but I fail to see how that makes it more relevant than a snowstorm that affects states or cities. If a snowstorm brought Beijing to standstill, you bet it would receive at least this much notoriety. I've seen this argument a few times in this thread so far and, while slightly off the main thread, I think it's important to note that the scope and importance of an event is not determined by count of affected political entities. It's a particularly weak basis for argument when you consider the realative size of many European countries, especially those in the British Isles. aremisasling (talk) 03:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You mean December 2008 Northeast ice storm? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well would you look at that.--Found5dollar (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No, there wasn't snow in every square inch of this part of the world but the countries (of which, even according to us, there are five) did come to a standstill as a whole. Unless we want an article called something like "February 2009 Aberdeen-Leinster-Ulster-Bristol-Birmingham-Devon-Luton-Kent-East Sussex-Surrey-Southampton-South West England-Wales-West Yorkshire snowstorm"... --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 01:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This article definitely meets notability guidelines. It's been among the top media stories, and while one could argue WP:NOTNEWS, this is the most severe snowstorm in 18 years. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone}

"True, but the vast majority of Wikipedia's traffic originates from North America." - So the late 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami didn't deserve coverage because it didn't happen in North America? I'm not trying to compare the effect this snowstorm has had on NW Europe with that of the tsunami on coastal SE Asia, but such opinions really baffle me. If you looked over the garden fence every once in a while, you might notice that there are ~70 million people in Europe who speak English as a first language, and just to justify my previous statement, the parliament of India (the second most populous country on the planet, with a population three times that of North America) deals through English, it's recognised as an official language there, so I don't think North America deserves any special treatment in the "en.wiki.x.io" domain regardless of traffic patterns. "It is not a resource meant to represent the majority of its readers. It is a resource meant to represent an agglomeration of human knowledge and is meant to serve people worldwide." - Bang on, I couldn't agree with you more.

I have to laugh when watching the supposedly BRITISH national news, with guys barely up to their ankles in snow implying that Ragnarok is upon us, yet on the same day, when trees are being blown down and main roads being blocked by snow in Scotland, it doesn't seem to be noteworthy. Scotland routinely gets ignored on the "national" news, and even people from the north of England were complaining about the fuss made by the southern oriented news. Tourists appear to be amazed that things are falling apart because of something like this. My mother had a very good giggle at the reporters live in Trafalgar Square in a couple of inches of snow, or beside a main road, barely ankle deep.194.106.220.19 (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

• Keep: This article is highly notable and full of encyclopedic information, if it were to have happened in Canada, Scandinavia or Russia it wouldn't be notable as it is normal there, but because it happened in the UK/ Ireland makes it notable, because of different geography and conditions and also because it is abnormal in the UK/ Ireland makes it notable. Not to mention it is the worse snowstorm in 18 years. This certainly meets notability guidelines. Also the fact that users/ readers from the US don't care about it is not a reason to delete it. There are many American article I don't care about, but that is no reason to delete it. Americanisation should not be tolerated on Wikipedia, Wikipedia is not just for US audiences, but for audiences all around the English Speaking world. Many people from outside the US will want to read this encyclopedic article.

Also to 194.106.220.19/ Lance Tyrell, this is not a forum, take your rubbish else where please. Ijanderson (talk) 14:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Please try to be civil, Ijanderson.Fuzzform (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• In Chicago, 10 inches wouldn't close the schools. It seems that such a small amount of snowfall may not be notable. Spinach Monster (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but this is the biggest amount of snow the UK and Ireland has seen for decades.  GARDEN  21:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a little over exagerated. It was the deepest in London for 18 years and maybe the south-east of England. Although that still makes it notable. Several inches of snow laying in the centre of London is rare. Jolly Ω Janner 21:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Spinach Monster's post being reverted as trolling. We're going to have another Muhammad on our hands at this rate. RaseaC (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Rename

Given that the met office (and other wikipedia articles) use the term snow event I propose that we rename this article as February 2009 United Kingdom snow event.KTo288 (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Since when has the so-called Republic of Ireland been invaded by the United Kingdom? --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 01:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 05:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

In anwser to Ed 17 putting the information with regards to the Republic of Ireland in the section regions of the UK is not the most tactful of things to do.KTo288 (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Renaming suggestion: UK and Ireland Snowstorms February 2009 (there's more on the way!). I'll do a copy-edit on the existing material, will remove the regional sections because no content has been added. Edit Re: the above - I've just finished the copy-edit and saw no text relating to Ireland (I know there *was* some).Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Moved it here KTo288 (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I support the renaming suggestion, as the amount of snow was not enough to merit the description "storm". In fact, looked at from the point of view of someone in the US or Canada, say, the whole event is so trivial as not to be notable.Ehrenkater (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That's like someone who lives near the equator saying a heatwave in the Arctic is irrelevant when such an event would undoubtedly be given its own article. --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 02:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

"Great Britain and Ireland"

• As I've noted above, I don't think this merits its own article. But should it continue to exist, I suggest "United Kingdom and Ireland" be replaced with Britain and Ireland, or Great Britain and Ireland, or simply British Isles. Thoughts? ~Asarlaí 18:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Not British Isles. Please. The fallout would be catastrophic. --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 20:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm suggesting it be replaced with Britain and Ireland only. ~Asarlaí 20:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the argument is here, currently the title is February 2009 United Kingdom and Ireland snowstorm. I think it should stay as that, it pretty much sums up what is happening. RaseaC (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ummm it also affected north-east France and Belgium at the start and more snow will be heading over there soon. British Isles seems to be politicaly innapropriate as the title of the article and I respect that decision. Maybe even North West Europe? Jolly Ω Janner 20:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, if we use Britain and Ireland it's shorter and just as accurate. Secondly, since this is an article about a natural climatic event, I think the title should use geographical terms only. United Kingdom is a political term, while Ireland can mean either "the island" or just "the state". ~Asarlaí 21:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd support using Great Britain and Ireland. Jolly Ω Janner 21:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above argument, however the name of the island is officially great britain --Daniel Supreme (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"Great Britain" may be the official term, but (from my own experience) "Britain" is used much more often, especially in casual conversation. For the sake of simplicity, how about using "Britain" for the title and "Great Britain" for the rest of the article? I doubt anyone will be confused. ~Asarlaí 23:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

History suggests that someone will always find some way to "be confused" either way. --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 00:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, the term "Great Britain" refers to the island called "Britain" and "Little Britain" refers to Britanny. Since nobody uses the latter any longer the former isn't strictly speaking necessary. -- Evertype·✆ 09:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems most of you prefer Great Britain and Ireland. That's fine, I can compromise. Do we agree to rename it as such when the protection expires? ~Asarlaí 12:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I belive so. Smudger94 (talk) 14:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The snowstorm is a weather event and as such affects islands, not states (since the islands would be there even if there were no states). -- Evertype·✆ 14:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Britain and Ireland, since it is a geographical article it can go by geographical place names, not political place names. Ijanderson (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Britain and Ireland sounds good to me. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• The page has been renamed February 2009 Britain and Ireland snowstorm. ~Asarlaí 19:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, although, as you can see on the section below, we need to come to a decision over the use of "snowstorm". Jolly Ω Janner 20:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is it "Great Britain" in the title when the vote was for "Britain"? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

There wasn't a vote. Great Britain is the official name, but Britain is more common. I'm not sure which to use. Jolly Ω Janner 16:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"The page has been renamed February 2009 Britain and Ireland snowstorm. "~Asarlaí 19:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Vote, straw poll, whatever you like. What happened since Asarlaí's move? Why was someone added a "Great" without any discussion? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Because Britain's great! But seriously... Great Britain is the official (including the official geographical) term. Britain is a more common term though. I think it's fine as it is now (Great Britain). Jolly Ω Janner 18:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

From what I can see, most people here who expressed a preference opted for just Britain, and it seems that this was what it was moved to. Which would mean that someone else, without discussion or consultation, moved it to "Great". Hardly democratic. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a democracy. Great Britain is the official name of the island. I can't see any compeling reason for it to be changed to Britain. A user did mention that Great Britain was the official name and as a result I changed my decission from Britain to Great Britain. That might have been a sign for the user to move it elsewhere. Jolly Ω Janner 16:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"Snowstorm"

• As I discussed at Wikinews, we shouldn't use the word snowstorm. Jolly Ω Janner 20:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think snowstorm is fitting on account of that's what it is. Otherwise we may aswell call it a heatwave. RaseaC (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

By the time France and Belgium feel its full force it will probably be so overcrowded that it will require its own article. It doesn't seem to be going away just yet. --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 20:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

See here. This is where we had a bief discussion about the use "storm". The Met Office are calling it a snow event and the BBC are being very careful not to use the word "storm". Why should Wikipedia lower its standards of factual arrucaracy when the reliable sources are doing a much better job than us? Jolly Ω Janner 20:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

By the time France and Belgium feel the force hopefully someone will realise it would, at most, deserve a footnote in this article, there is a more relevant article for other countries. snow event made me laugh, what a stupid term. WP should call it whatever the consensus is, my vote is storm. RaseaC (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that we should build consensus, but by using reliable sources as a good example, rather than voting. Jolly Ω Janner 21:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the place to build a consensus. The term 'snowstorm' has a specific scientific definition and connotations which imply heavy snowfall accompanied by strong winds, which wasn't the case. Therefore this is 'snow fall' rather than a 'snowstorm' and should not be debated by the community with limited, if any, knowledge on the subject. 19.26, 7 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.33.8 (talk)

"Snow fall" perhaps? Whilst we cannot be certain over whether it swirled around, slapped us across the face and shut down power supplies we know that it definitely didn't grow out of the ground. --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 22:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

if we use snow fall we mite as well use snow on account of it doesn't really arrive in any other manner. At WP consesus rules, so by all means use reliable sources as a basis for your opinion but ultimately its opinion that will count. RaseaC (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"United Kingdom and Ireland snow?" --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 00:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• NB The In the news section on the Main Page has now changed from snowstorm to snowfall. Jolly Ω Janner 23:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Uh no, I'm afraid you're wrong. That was my original line. It has always been phrased like that. This is its original posting for those left in any doubt. --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 00:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
    • In fact BorgQueen's inspired posting of the term "fall" twice (with the photo as well) would indicate further support and appear to have resolved this part of the naming debate. --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 00:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately out beloved BorgQueen also move-protected the article without any explanation, so we can't move it. Jolly Ω Janner 01:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oh dear. I wonder why... edit warring such as this perhaps? One of the things that was occurring when it was protected was the removal of any mention of Ireland from the article plus edit warring over terminology. I should think the same would apply to the title. People are inclined to play around with the terms used to describe this part of the world too much and we'd probably end up with multiple redirects on the Main Page. Personally I'm quite fine with the title - I don't think the world is going to be changed drastically in the next day or so because we've used the word "storm" to describe the event. --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 01:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

A sysop would have to move it and sysops are also able to edit ITN, so anyone moving this article should repair all the links going to it afterwards. I still do not think the title should call it snowfall, especialy as the ITN headline says otherwise. Jolly Ω Janner 11:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Moved now. The ITN headline could just be changed. Why are you using it as a source of reasoning? --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 20:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Jolly, why did you move this if you don't agree...? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it should be called "snowfall". It used to be called "snowfall" on the Main Page, but it's now been changed. Jolly Ω Janner 22:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Type of storm: snowstorm let's get some consistency going here people. RaseaC (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't remove that from the infobox, although I have added a note that it is not a storm. Jolly Ω Janner 02:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I noticed, maybe worth putting it back, it reads worse than the hypocracy. I'll leave it up to you (and anyone else that cares) I'm not too btohered. RaseaC (talk) 23:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

We might get away with calling it a winter storm, as the wave of rain/snow expected on Monday has been classed as a winter storm. Jolly Ω Janner 00:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Second wave of snow

I've noted the current falls in my region in the first para - I assume others will add more as the situation develops. Might copy-edit later; have fun ;-) Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The BBC News website has a great section on the snow chaos - can people add more information about travel problems, school closures running into a fifth day and other problems. Thanks. 03md (talk) 10:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I've included Irish weather-related incidents as it is being affected just as badly as the UK. --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 15:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

What the Irish newspapers have to say on the topic: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 15:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

How much snow was there?

In North America, we are accustomed to having a snowfall described in number of inches. Would someone include this for reference purposes so that we can tell how bad it is?

On feet= 12inches. Misortie (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. A measurement of the snowfall in various locations is notable enough to mention. The article says that "More than 25 cm of snow fell on parts of the North Downs and over 15 cm (6 in) in parts of the London area." I think we can improve upon that. ~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

We use the same system here, where I was I reckon it was a good 8 inches or so. (Picture taken around about noon on 02-02-09). KTo288 (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• 55cm at Okehampton. It was on the BBC 6 O'Clock News. Almost two feet, so I'm not sure if we should use inches or feet. cm would be better to be honest. Jolly Ω Janner 20:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think cm (in) is fine, that's what we're doing at the moment and there are not really any grounds for changing it. RaseaC (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Would public domain pictures of the snow depth be of any use? I might be able to get some photos tomorrow :) Jolly Ω Janner 21:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes please! :) --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 22:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I managed to get near Okehampton and take pics. I'll start organising them and uploading etc tonight. Jolly Ω Janner 17:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• 2 inches in my area of West Sussex. You can see my driveway here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smudger94 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Up to my chest in patches... Jolly Ω Janner 20:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

For 18 years?

I've been told, by news articles and the national news on BBC just a minute ago, it was the worst snow for 27 Years? Not too much of a problem, just thought I'd throw it in. 62.31.153.160 (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That's possible but the source used probably says 18. Perhaps it has increased but at least it isn't exaggerating current estimates. --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 20:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Being a little more geographically specific would also help. These snow falls may be exceptional for southern England and Ireland, but in this part of Scotland we've had an inch or two, which is the worst since - well last month really. It's hard to imagine it is all that exceptional for much of Northern England either. Ben MacDui 18:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, likewise parts of Western and Southern Ireland hasn't been affected too badly. It's presumably down to the news agencies being based in Dublin and London with their respective higher populations. --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 20:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Some areas it's the worst for 18 years. Worst for 22 years in the Westcountry according to some meterologists. I think the headliner should be changed amediately, because it is missleading. To calrify, I mean that we shouldn't say "The heaviest snowfall in x amount of years blah blah", but just "A long period of snowfall across UK has affected blah blah" Jolly Ω Janner 20:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well 18 and 22, give or take a couple of years each way = exactly two decades. So "heaviest snowfall in decades" would do fine here. --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 01:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds a bit vague. There will be figures for the nation as a whole, i.e. average mm of precipitation nationwide. I say we dig those out and compare those to recent years gone by and state that as a figure instead of a slightly diluted version of the same thing. Anyone know where to find those raw data? --PenguinCopter (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

We probably have to a bit vague as there are five countries involved here. I seem to be the only one to realise this important point. --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 02:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Pictures categorisation

Category:United Kingdom February 2009 snow event at Wikimeda Commons is the place to categorise pictures related to this event. Jolly Ω Janner 21:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• More located at Category:Dartmoor February 2009 snow event, which I took. Jolly Ω Janner 02:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The equivalent for images from the Republic of Ireland is Commons:Category:Ireland February 2009 snow event.KTo288 (talk) 10:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we should merge the category for Ireland and the UK. If there are a large amount of images of a local area then that can be a sub-category like Dartmoor. Anyone agree with me? Jolly Ω Janner 16:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. We should merge Ireland February 2009 snow event and United Kingdom February 2009 snow event. Since it deals with a single event. But we need to keep the categories Snow in Ireland and Snow in the UK separate. ~Asarlaí 16:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done Jolly Ω Janner 19:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Context

For areas used to getting snow, this isn't that much snow. It would probably be worth noting the reasons the storm caused such widespread disruption, which I assume would be because of a lack of snow removal equipment and lack of preparedness in general for this much snow. It may not make sense to spend lots of money every year preparing for something that only comes every couple decades, but the article should at least mention these ideas. - Taxman ^Talk 03:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

How else should we mention the disruption? Have you read the air traffic, television and sport sections? I don't see how else it can be done... --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 04:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

For comprehensiveness the article needs to explain why that amount of snow caused so much disruption. So you simply add a little bit about that. It needs to talk about the efforts to clear the snow anyway, so that would fit in as well. I'm no journalist, but isn't it who what where when why? This is the why part. - Taxman ^Talk 16:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Based in Austria, I absolutely agree. From where I write, even the few images selected for this article appear harmless. Compare File:Snow_in_West_Yorkshire,_Feb_5_2009.jpg to, say, File:Snow_plough_train_II.JPG or File:Mariazellerbahn_level_crossing_I.JPG. And if in Austria all public buses were cancelled and all schools closed each time it snows ... <KF> 00:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

A petulant grumble

Sigh. Here in Westport, Co. Mayo we've got some snow on The Reek but no snow otherwise. I guess we get to miss out on all the fun and paralysis. Probably we'll be hit by another wave of gales though. -- Evertype·✆ 09:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it does appear to be mainly Ulster and Leinster - the sunniness of Galway is forever being pointed out on TV3's news bulletins. But I think it was RTÉ that made a point once that it was possible to be knee-deep in snow in one area only to walk a few metres down the road and to find no snow at all. So it does appear to be extremely scattered. --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 21:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Main page picture

I think that this picture which is on the main page should also be in the article. It's very evocative. Esn (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 01:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Casualties and Deaths

Two sections...should they be merged? Could "casualties" be renamed though...the mother who gave birth to the twins...what term could be given to this?Squirrel684 (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Technically, "casualties" refers to both deaths and injuries. The mother giving birth might be listed under a section titled "Other incidents".Fuzzform (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Or "multiple births". --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 16:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Casualties is a euphemism for fatalities. I've not seem it used for injuries in a broad context. TunaSushi (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Extent of snowfall

The snowfall affected not only Britiain and Ireland, but also the smaller islands surrounding them. It even affected the Isle of Man, which is neither part of the United Kingdom nor the Republic of Ireland. In short, it affected the whole of the British Isles. ðarkuncoll 00:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ya can move it to February 2009 British Isles snowfall if ya want. It makes no diff, to me. GoodDay (talk) 00:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

British Isles is a disputed and outdated term which if you were to read the opening paragraph of our own article would tell you that its use is discouraged. The title should be "Britain, Ireland and Isle of Man" then since we're being geographical and not political. --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 01:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Also affected the Channel Islands... maybe the Isle of Wite, although I'm not sure. Jolly Ω Janner 03:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

As per emerging consensus, I've moved the page. ðarkuncoll 10:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The name of this article has already been agreed upon in the section above (under "Great Britain and Ireland"). Naming the two main islands is sufficient for the title, otherwise it would be incredibly long. If you really feel it's necessary to name... the Isle of Man, Isle of Wight, Anglesey, Aran Islands, Channel Islands, Hebrides, Orkneys, Shetlands etc... they can be included in the main body of the article, not the title. ~Asarlaí 13:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Gallery

We're probably going to need one of these. I doubt we'll be able to find images relevant to the section i.e Deaths, casualties, media coverage etc, so it seems logical to lay out a place for them. About eight images should be fine. Jolly Ω Janner 03:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

One pic for each inch of snow? TunaSushi (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand your question. Jolly Ω Janner 17:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You say about eight images for the gallery. If there were eight inches of snow, that would be one image for each inch. TunaSushi (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Fascinating... Jolly Ω Janner 23:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

3 x 3 will give you nine, if there's enough snow. This article isn't very notable in my opinion anyway.TunaSushi (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

British Isles

My comment regarding the title changes seems to have been cut off before the end. Here it is in full:

Including Ireland in the term "British Isles" is controversial, making the title both inappropriate and potentially ambiguous. The term "British Isles and Ireland", while appearing redundant to some, is at least unambiguous to all, and is increasingly preferred by media organisations.

Udzu (talk) 09:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The term British Isles includes Ireland, it is not ambiguous at all just controversial, and really not worth the grief and hassle to use, see thread above pleading not to use it. I'd sooner call this article "Snowfalls on a small group of islands of the coast of Western Europe" than use the term "British Isles".KTo288 (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

How about just using Snowfall on the British Emipire during feburuary 2009????Jason Rees (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Premature?

It seems to me that this article is rather premature. The event probably isn't even over yet, so it's a bit like trying to write a history of WWII in 1943. It's certainly too soon to put it in any sort of historical perspective. At the moment, there isn't much to go on beyond news reports, and these are rarely to be relied on when it comes to the weather. In his column in the weather feuture in yesterday's Daily Telegraph, Philip Eden points out how the anow event of Sunday/Monday (1st/2nd Feb) became inflated in the media. This was the heaviest snow in London. north Surrey and northwest Kent for 18 years, but as Monday wore on it was described as "the worst for 18 years in parts of the south-east", "the worst for 18 years in some parts of England" and finally as simply "the worst for 18 years". Similarly the claim on Friday that the snow was the deepest for 27 years seemed to be based on a single measurement of 55cm at Okehampton up on Dartmoor, which might or might not have been representative of the "level snow" depth given that there had been a lot of drifting. It's the mild winters that we have had recently that have got everyone so excited by the current event. I don't think it would have been looked on as especially remarkable back in the 1980s. If this cold and snowy spell merits an article, then so do those of Dec 1981, Jam 1982 and Jan 1987, and if one considered the whole of the 20th century there would probably be well over a dozen. JH (talk page) 10:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I do strongly agree. There was a massive snowfall last night in South Dublin. So, definitely the event isn't over yet. - Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 10:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also a part of it. On the Main Page it states "Severe winter conditions, including the heaviest snowfall in 18 years in South East England, disrupt air and road traffic and close schools across the United Kingdom and Ireland." Jolly Ω Janner 12:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the event is still unfolding, and the article still 'under construction'. More snow is forecast for tonight and tomorrow with no sign of a thaw, amd gales forecast for the south of England. The article will probably stabilise into something like Winter of 1962–1963, therefore I think it's worth keeping, reffing and copy-editing. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The snow forecast for Monday is actually a winter storm as quoted from the BBC forecasters. Heavy winds is the main factor, although most of their snow predictions are over-exagerated or never occur. We will wait and see for tomorrow. Jolly Ω Janner 18:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Move-protected

The article has been move-protected, due to the ongoing move war. Please resolve the issue through discussion. Note that the protection is not an endorsement of the current article name. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It's been moved a few times since the protection expired. I think you should protect it until the event is over, allowing the article to become stable. Thanks. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Move-protected for an additional one week. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

School Closures

Just wondering why Scotland and the south west are in the same paragraph, being completely the opposite ends of our island. Also, most of the schools down here in the SW were closed around the 5th/6th, which goes against the bit below which says most were reopened on the 4th...
Ը२ձւե๓ձռ¹⁷ 14:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion the article has the wrong structure. I think we should have about 3-4 sections: one for 1-2 February (the first wave) and another for the second wave (6 Feb). Maybe another section for the storm that is now arriving on 9 Feb, but depends how bad this storm is I guess. Other possible sections might include "media hype", because there's a lot of controversy about how much news space it took up. Maybe other sections if you can think of any. You could just put a sentence like "schools were closed" in each section. We need more content about the actual geography of the event. Jolly Ω Janner 16:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It's an unfolding event and the article is bound to be messy for a while. It should get cleaned up as the event passes, read Winter of 1946-1947 and you'll see what I mean. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 09:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty much how I envisioned this article to end up as... but with more pictures. Jolly Ω Janner 16:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Not gone yet

Why does it say 'dissipated'? It's still snowing.--So Oaty (talk) 12:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  GARDEN  13:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• There was a winter storm that swept across southern England on 9-10 February. Jolly Ω Janner 16:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• End of UK's big freeze in sight according to the BBC. Jolly Ω Janner 13:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• I've added the dissipation date as 13 February 2009. Any objections? Jolly Ω Janner 00:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

See also

I have readded the Global warming, Al Gore, and Carbon footprint links. If these are not appropriate, tell me how. I thought that see also links were for those readers who might be interested in tangently related material. I attempted to discuss this with Jolly, but he did not respond nor give a reason for reverting me.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• I replied 15 minutes after you asked me. Jolly Ω Janner 22:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

[[8]] makes the link for us.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Everytime something like this happens (even flooding) a newspapers manages to find some scientists who claim global warming caused it. Should we add Al Gore the see also section of every single weather event in the past 20 years? Jolly Ω Janner 23:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Al Gore could probably go. Although he is peripherally related to Global Warming and interested readers might be interested in his pontificating. I believe the scientists and meteorologists who commented in the story are very qualified to make the conclusions thaey have linking the concept to the weather.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• A better way around this situation would be to add a sentence about its relation to the apparent global warming claimed in the newspaper article. By adding wikilinks to global warming in the newly-added sentence, we would not need to add them to the see also section. Jolly Ω Janner 23:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You do not seem to be applying the same standards to the remaining categoryDie4Dixie (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I would be willing to look at your proposed sentence.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• More users need to discuss this for there to be a consensus. Two people isn't enough. Jolly Ω Janner 23:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. It doesn´t appear that you have a consensus to have reverted me either. We certainly have enough people for you to propose a sentence while we wait.Die4Dixie (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think a passing mention to global warming may be worthy, providing it's referenced, in relation to UK snow events becoming rarer and the run of mild winters during 1990's and 2000's. I think Mr. Gore is irrelevant unless he is directly quoted or referenced. The event seems to be over now. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Nix Gore, but link to global warming in see also section, right ?Die4Dixie (talk) 02:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think there should be a sentence abou its relation to global warming with a link to global warming in the sentence. Therefore it would be needed in the see also section. Jolly Ω Janner 12:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Overexaggerated reaction

It think it is also worth to mention the overexaggerated reaction of some people in the UK, like closing schools just because of bad weather forecasts etc.. For instance, in Cardiff there was just a tiny bit of snow, and it still managed to paralyse the work of many companies (and as far as I know, the Airport cancelled a few flights). Some people refused to go to work just because of the tiny layer of snow on the ground and Universities cancelled some lectures for the same reason. Many people actually make fun of the Brits because of their reaction. When you look at pictures like this, you see a regular winter in Poland, Germany, Norway or Italy - that's not a lot of snow... BeŻet (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It is worthy of its own section. Jolly Ω Janner 16:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Let them make fun of us Brits and our snow policy, the counter argument that arose in an interview (may find link eventually..) is that rather than spend millions of £ preparing for the rare event of snow, the British economy simply shuts down for a couple of days and then re-opens. None of this namby-pamby infrastructure and preparation business. PS: The fact that people refused to go to work shows a general displeasure at their work, not actually an exaggeration. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I hardly think so... I find it hard to believe that it costs less to "shut down the economy for a couple of days" than to prepare the country for snow... And my point was that in some parts of Britain where there was just a little bit of snow (which melted the same day), it still caused chaos and disruption - that's what one may find funny. BeŻet (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Stocks of grit, lorries to transport the grit, facilities to produce and house the grit, specialised equipment to lay and deal with snow, training to use that equipment and deal with snow. The cost of doing nothing versus doing something is debatable. It may be funny to those on continental Europe, who annually have to shovel snow off their doors and cars just to get out of their homes. But my point is that the lack of action can be seen from two ways. Perhaps some of the points in this discussion could be placed into the article, if you can source the sides. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it was their love of snow, rather than their disspleasure of work that made many people skive off work and school. Jolly Ω Janner 21:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe their love of snow drove their displeasure at the thought of work? Who knows? Maybe religion? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• This information should go in the article (with references) instead of on the talk page ;) Jolly Ω Janner 00:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This is POV and certainly not worthy of it's own section. The above comments are dangerously close to the arguments against having this article at all due to notability concerns. RaseaC (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It's point of view from reliable sources. Jolly Ω Janner 16:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason why this article should be in Wikipedia is not the amount of snow that has fallen, but the panic, chaos and disruption that it caused. The section regarding the panic and its criticism is closely related to it. BeŻet (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Meterological Data

We need to get some decent Meterological Data in this article which im sure is available from The Met Office, Meteo France, NOAA, as well as the channel 4 documentry shown in england a few weeks ago now. Jason Rees (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't rely on the Channel 4 documentary. There wasn't much hard meteorological data. When the April edition of the Royal Meteorological Society's journal "Weather" comes out, it should have a lot of useful data. (Printing deadlines prevented it from being in the March issue.) I'm a subscriber, so will try to extract something. There is a little data on the Met Office's website. However the best online source of data is probably Philip Eden's website. JH (talk page) 18:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

What documantary? Can we add the title to the article if it was solely about this event. MickMacNee (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Infobox image

Worth using? I'm hosting in on my Flickr page, as the source is pretty slow. Parrot of Doom 20:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Doh, its 2010 of course. Never mind. Parrot of Doom 20:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on February 2009 Great Britain and Ireland snowfall. 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/20090214042011/http://www.bathspa.ac.uk/about/news/default.asp?article=655 to http://www.bathspa.ac.uk/about/news/default.asp?article=655
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/2009/2/5/snow-thur0830.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090209050346/http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/2009/2/6/snow11.15.html to http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/2009/2/6/snow11.15.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on February 2009 Great Britain and Ireland snowfall. 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/20110720032928/http://nws.met.psu.edu/severe/2009/03Feb2009.pdf to http://nws.met.psu.edu/severe/2009/03Feb2009.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090213132037/http://www.tv3.ie/article.php?article_id=8053&locID=1.2.&pagename=news to http://www.tv3.ie/article.php?article_id=8053&locID=1.2.&pagename=news
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090211150957/http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/sixnations/2009/0206/france.html to http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/sixnations/2009/0206/france.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090210070126/http://www.rte.ie/sport/gaa/championship/2009/0208/cancelled.html to http://www.rte.ie/sport/gaa/championship/2009/0208/cancelled.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/2009/2/5/snow-thur0830.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 15 September 2023

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: moved. Uncontested RM. (closed by non-admin page mover) ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 00:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

---

February 2009 Great Britain and Ireland snowfall → February 2009 British Isles snowfall – British Isles is more suitable than just "Great Britain and Ireland" which suggests those were the only two islands affected which is not the case. greyzxq ^talk 21:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:55, 22 September 2023 (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.