Talk:Cyclone Dagmar
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cyclone Dagmar article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Name of storm
Who designated this storm "Patrick"? In Sweden and Norway it was called "Dagmar", and a comparison of Google searchs for storm+Patrick+2011 and storm+Dagmar+2011 tells its own story. If you try storm+Patrick+norway+sweden+finland+estonia you land up only with this article, while if you try storm+Dagmar+norway+sweden+finland+estonia you get many more relevant ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.169.131.14 (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Patrick is the OFFICIAL name of the storm. I thought you would have noticed that. Bruvtakesover (T|C) 20:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Official by what criteria? I have not noticed and seemingly not the first who commented. --LPfi (talk) 07:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have changed the name of the article to Dagmar, since more damage was caused in Scandinavia than any other area. See Per (storm). Bruvtakesover (T|C) 15:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Damage
Is the value of damaged property right? According to finnish Wikipedia the storm caused damage of $130 million in Finland alone.84.250.173.42 (talk) 18:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
23 December NASA worldview image
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e0/Dagmar_23_December_2011.jpg/220px-Dagmar_23_December_2011.jpg)
The image is dated to 23 December 2011 on Nasa's Worldview, a full 24 hours before the development of the storm as referenced in the text. I don't think it is relevant to the article, we have at best a baroclinic leaf structure, at worst a homogeneous blob of cloud which is thousands of miles away from the regions affected, a full day before it is stated to develop in the text. The storm, if this is what is represented (which I don't think it is) underwent significant meteorological development after this image. I think the image has no context to the storm. In this case, no image is indeed better than this one. It certainly does not show the storm as a mature cyclone, and given the date, not at lowest pressure or peak intensity. The image doesn't show any features of an extratropical cyclone, and doesn't illustrate the article in any meaningful way for instance; comma cloud, possible sting jet cloud structures, dry slot, general shapiro-keyser life stages for it to be useful.Lacunae (talk) 17:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)