Wikipedia

Talk:2011 Groundhog Day blizzard

(Redirected from Talk:January 31–February 2, 2011 North American winter storm)
Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

Long-term view

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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
Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

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
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

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
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

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
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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.

 Y 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
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011_Groundhog_Day_blizzard&oldid=1196591502"