Talk:January 23–27, 2026 North American winter storm

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

@MarioProtIV: Saying "The January 2026 North American winter storm was a winter storm" is a tautology that is both obvious and redundant. See MOS:AVOIDBOLD: it is not helpful to introduce unnatural redundancy to the first sentence to include the title in bold. The argument there has been no issue with this in the past a be d has been formatted like this for a long time from your edit summary ignores that consensus can change. Also, you've reverted this change three times now. Please stop reverting. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 14:30, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Tweaked to avoid redundancy an instead state immediately what it did. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 14:48, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

It did not avoid redundancy. You still defined the January 2026 North American winter storm as happening in North America in January 2026. Prompt links to essential articles such as winter storm and ice storm help readers. Repetition for the sake of boldface does not. Surtsicna (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

How does boldface in the lead sentence benefit the reader more than the essential link winter storm? Surtsicna (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Because it is the rule in all article to start with the boldface title of the article (see any other storms like January 2010 North American winter storms) Pierre cb (talk) 12:58, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

No, we have no such rule. In fact, we have a rule saying that in cases like this the lead sentence should not begin with boldface: MOS:AVOIDBOLD. And the most important rule is that content should be written for the benefit of the readers. Links benefit readers. Surtsicna (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I’ve already explained why, and the sentence was tweaked accordingly to avoid repetition. The “link issue” was resolved by putting it just a bit later, which doesn’t seem to add any harm. I would stop trying to force your change when you’ve been contested on this by two people instead of edit-warring. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 13:37, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

No, you did not explain how boldface benefits the reader more than links. You did not mention readers at all. The "link issue" is not resolved; per MOS:LINK, the term should be linked at first occurence. This aids readers. Do we really need an RfC on whether this article should be exempt from MOS:AVOIDBOLD? Surtsicna (talk) 13:56, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

The lead as it stands is certainly a textbook example of why MOS:AVOIDBOLD exists: the article title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the first sentence. Moving links later than their first appearance to purposelessly regurgitate the article title in boldface doesn't alleviate the issues of redundancy and readability. TheAlienAdventures (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

As of the current revision, the lead reads: The January 23–27, 2026 North American winter storm caused deadly and catastrophic ice and snow impacts across a very long stretch of land, encompassing Northern Mexico to the Southern and Northeastern United States and into Canada from 22 to 27 January 2026. Developing in part from an upper-level low on January 22[...].

January 22/23 is mentioned three times in the first two sentences; a date range is mentioned twice and is not consistent. While I don't agree with the reiteration of the title using boldface with such a clunky article title, if the consensus is to not follow MOS:AVOIDBOLD (which coincidentally uses an article about a meteorological phenomenon as an example of how not to construct the lead), I would suggest at least reducing this redundancy in dates given. TheAlienAdventures (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

This misguided, guideline-breaking insistence on boldface is simply guaranteed to produce such stupid sentences. Surtsicna (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the mess that was the lead sentence, Departure. Surtsicna (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and tweaked it to avoid the clunkiness of the lead while conforming to the suggestions here. However, after some thinking and reading back on the February 2021 discussion of the Uri name, I think it is probably much better to only bold the WP:COMMONNAME(s) if they exist and referred to as such in mass media (a quick google hit for Fern and Gianna both show non-TWC media and even governmental agencies using it), which is what we do for tornadoes if the page name itself is not the common name. I think this is probably the better idea and also avoids the repetition problem as well. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 00:49, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. I think the point of bolding is to highlight proper names. When we bold descriptive names, we misleadingly present them as proper names–in addition to creating other problems. Surtsicna (talk) 01:04, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

This map is difficult to decipher without a key. What do each of the colors mean? -- Avocado (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I had asked HikingHurricane if he could make another map key like he did for the 2020-2021 winter storms where we had those legends. He told me he’d make one when he can but obviously he is more busy and doesn’t have as much time to do so. Also the website I think he used to create those is also tedious as I tried making it myself and given the scope of this storm was very hard to do. I can however add a legend beneath this image. I don’t know if HH will still make one if he has time but this might have to do for now, and shouldn’t be too hard to do. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 17:53, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes, just calling out the colors and what they mean in the caption or file description would go a long way, and was all I was really hoping for. A key on the map itself isn't critical. -- Avocado (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

So sorry for the delay. When I made these maps four years ago I did it manually but that is obviously very tedious and so this time I thought I'd just write a Python script. The NWS API though is weird and the geometry parameter for each entry is null and so I'm not quite sure what to do. Since I go to school for meteorology now with people a lot smarter than me my plan is to just ask someone, maybe a professor during office hours, and hopefully get it done this week. Sorry again for the delay. ~ HikingHurricane _(contribs) 18:07, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, and no rush! -- Avocado (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I am not fully sure what is being made and what is fully needed, but I am assuming that you are attempting to get which locations/counties are in which type of emergency/warning? --Super Goku V (talk) 11:27, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

@HikingHurricane: Just checking in on this. As a reminder, I did this edit to the description. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:00, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

@Super Goku V: I did make the map in Python and uploaded the file last week to Commons and it's been the one embedded in the article since then. ~ HikingHurricane _(contribs) 02:05, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I thought that this discussion was for something that needed to be done to File:Weather.gov 24 January 2026 night.png, but gotcha. Thank you for taking care of things. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:07, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I am not 100% sure what is being requested here as I don't have a link to the map you are talking about. However, I have updated the Commons description in a work-in-progress state with hidden tags as can be seen here. If someone can determine the best way to format the legend template (which I "borrowed" from a NFL image) and confirm the color picker I used worked (which it should have, but I use the "night light" mode on my computer at nearly all times, so I cannot precisely confirm), then whatever that is needed could probably be made from my notes. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:22, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Here you go for now, Avocado: Internet Archive of the National Weather Service for ~1:10 UTC on 01/24/2026 --Super Goku V (talk) 11:12, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Avocado (talk) 12:19, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't think the +1 missing should be added in the deaths by state/province CtrlAltSpace (he/him) 06:31, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I came across this article from the Wikipedia homepage. I think this article is well-written and certainly covers the storm in a good amount of detail, but I have concerns about a couple of WP policies this article might be in conflict with.

The first is WP:NOTNEWS. This site is "not an indiscriminate collection of information" or a "news service". I’m concerned about “recentism” with regards to this storm. Does this storm have lasting, historical significance? Maybe. But I think it’s too early to tell.

For another perspective base on WP:RECENT, this article is extremely detailed, listing specific flight cancellation counts and local power outages. In 10 years, these details will be seen as mere trivia rather than “encyclopedic knowledge”. In regards to proportionality, if a storm from 1950 of similar size has only a small paragraph in a broader article, but a storm from last week has its own massive page, it creates an imbalance that violates the goal of a balanced encyclopedia.

I don’t want to rain on anyone’s parade here, so I want to see what other people think of these remarks. Thanks. Hannahthom7 (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

With your point with the 1950 storm of a similar size, if it is before the NWS was founded, barely any information, after, some more information, its also based on notability. shane (talk to me if you want!) 13:13, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

Hi all. I'm wondering if it would be best to include the temperature plunge that occurred across much of the country this week separately from the winter storm, as the two are necessarily separate subjects, even if one was borne out of the conditions of the other. I think it would just prove problematic down the line, and would rather have the space to discuss it already established. There's a great deal of material already out there about freezing temperatures (i.e Cuba recorded freezing temperatures for the first time in recorded history, Florida recorded sustained freezing temperatures for the first time in decades, there were massive ice storms across much of the country, pretty significant portions of the mid-Atlantic, up to the last few days, have effectively been encased in a massive sheet of solid ice. Apparently a guy was able to run from Virginia to Washington DC across the Potomac because it's near frozen solid. There's a ton of reporting on this that I'd be happy to reference, but I think that we need to decide whether or not this falls within the domain of the article, or if there needs to be a separate one that's developed to cover the cold snap I'm referencing here that occurred across large parts of the country. This article would fall under it's broader domain, as the conditions seen amid the storm effectively occurred as a result of this larger shift in the polar vortex. If we do decide that it's necessary, we'll need to figure out a naming convention, as it hasn't technically ended in many places, though it's looking like it will pretty soon. Will wait to hear what others have to say, but will look forward to assisting with building that one as well. All the best, CSGinger14 (talk) 05:59, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I have plans to eventually make a page for this, most likely at January–February 2026 North American cold wave. It was best to wait a bit longer to allow the event to continue on a bit longer. I can put up a draft by tomorrow if that helps. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 06:31, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

@MarioProtIV That works perfectly, there's no rush, though I suspect that ultimately we should air on the earlier side, given that a considerable amount of sourcing already exists. Unfortunately I'm bogged down in a ton of coursework and a few other debates on the site at the moment so I'm not certain that I'll be much help in the next several days, but will do what I can if you'd like to ping me when the article's created.

All the best, CSGinger14 (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2026 (UTC)