Because winter storms don’t spin up like cyclones do, the Weather Channel has had to get more creative in its definition of the storms. In 2015, it decided that any storm that affected 2 million people or 400,000 square kilometers would get a name. This weekend’s storm is the 10th to meet the criteria since October (it’s projected to affect up to 85 million people), so it’s Winter Storm Jonas.

But not everyone is content to go along with the Weather Channel’s nomenclature—as it is, after all, a kind of marketing. The Washington Post’s Capital Weather Gang, which operates the blog of record for greater Beltway meteorology, held a poll to name the storm. Almost all the names proposed followed the scheme (“snow” plus “bad thing suffix”) started during the district’s 2010 storms, when Snowmageddon came only three days after Snowpocalypse. Though the novelty hit “Make Winter Great Again” won that poll, the Post decided it just didn’t work as a storm name, and it went with the second-place finisher: Snowzilla.

But even this name didn’t satisfy everyone. So Slate’s meteorologist, Eric Holthaus, started a new poll to “find a better name for this blizzard than #Snowzilla.” The options: Snowball Warning, Tsnownami, Blizzard of the Century, and David Snowie. (Unfortunately, not among the contenders: Ziggy Snowdust.) As of Friday evening, Snowie was on top.

Meanwhile, the crowd has chosen its own monikers. Both #blizzard2016 and #snowpocalypse2016 are trending on Twitter in D.C.

So many names for one system: Jonas, Snowzilla, David Snowie, the Blizzard of 2016. Much of this confusion could be resolved if the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration went ahead and christened winter storms like it does cyclones. There would be a clear way to talk about the system, and none of the names would retain the filth of marketing.

And do these storms even need names in the first place? Since they aren’t discrete phenomena like hurricanes, many people don’t think so. But I’ve come around on winter-storm names, for many of the reasons set out by Capital Weather Gang’s Ian Livingston and Brendan Heberton last year. Livingston and Heberton both opposed winter-storm naming when the Weather Channel started doing it, but as it gained steam, they found themselves more and more behind it.

And there are many perks to going with government names. It’s easier to describe and differentiate between named storms than bland weather patterns: Snowmageddon and Snowpocalypse are much easier to recall than “the first and second North American blizzards of 2010.” Names help forecasters accurately communicate the risks of a system to the public. And they would help meteorologists better understand what kind of storms become Big Ones and what kind of storms go bust.

As NOAA itself describes the virtues of hurricane names: “Over time, it was learned that the use of short, easily remembered names in written as well as spoken communications is quicker and reduces confusion when two or more tropical storms occur at the same time.”