![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on January 28, 2017. |
It would appear a user made extreme edits to certain parts of this page on one day about a month ago. It seems that large amounts of information were removed in these edits without any indication that the information is thought to be irrelevant or incorrect. Also a change in the referencing method has left the article with different referencing methods in different parts of the paper (as discussed below in the references section). Any opinions about reverting back to the 16 September version? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snincr ( talk • contribs) 19:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
This article needs serious clean-up. bob rulz 06:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
This article keeps cutting off because it's insanely long. I'll be back tomorrow to fix it. Vesperholly 09:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Getting them off the main page for the moment Vesperholly 19:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, it looks like consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#How_to_cite... is that we should go back to (Author Year). Apparently they are trying to work on getting a form of (Author Year) that would actually link to the main reference, which I think would be awesome. As that's not ready yet, however, i guess we should just change em back. I'm going to transcribe this debate to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Meteorology to find out what to do about other articles. - Runningonbrains 12:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Dunc1ca 11:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC) The standard for measuring snowfall is centimetres while millimetres is standard for rainfall. I have added conversions to imperial units to comply with Wikipedia's guidelines.
The result of the move request was no consensus for move. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 14:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Great Lakes Blizzard of 1977 → Blizzard of '77 — Common name. Powers T 14:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.A few days ago I saw that this article was posted as needing serious cleanup. For one thing there are no footnotes.
I started by Googling for information on the storm; since it happened in 1977 there's not a lot on the web. I did find some information and am incorporating my information (with footnotes) where appropriate.
I've been doing work on it section by section, and will continue to do so unless I hear diffently.
Today I plan to tackle the section "Onset" and will subsection it into Friday morning, Friday afternoon and Friday evening. This should help make the section less daunting and easier to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettymnz4 ( talk • contribs) 17:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I've been working on this article.
I have worked on:
- Winter of 1976-1977 - Antecedent weather - Prelude - Onset - all of it.
1. I'm inserting footnotes for material that I have references for. There is not alot of info on the web. I wasn't successful in searching the web for the references given originally. Where I do have information, I usually slightly reword that segment so it fits my source better; then I footnote it.
In one of the talk pages someone mentioned a frustration about how the footnoting was done for this article.
2. In the Onset section, I broke it up into Friday morning, Friday afternoon and Friday evening. With that I moved one block of text about airplanes not being able to move up to morning.
Shall I continue my work, or am I completely off base?!!
Thank you for your feedback. Bettymnz4 ( talk) 01:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
My goals evolved to be:
I believe that the hyperlinks need looking at (some are overlinked, IMHO); the categories should be checked, also. Bettymnz4 ( talk) 03:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I did alot of bareaking the article into many more sections to make it more readable, copy editing and sentence-by-sentence footnoting. I believe it is comprehensive. Overlinking needs to be looked at, as well as the categories. Bettymnz4 ( talk) 04:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: closed, no consensus for a move billinghurst sDrewth 17:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Great Lakes Blizzard of 1977 → Blizzard of '77 — Okay, I know I tried this before, but I really don't think it got a fair hearing. There are several things to consider here:
For all of these reasons, the page should be moved away from an uncommonly used phrase and moved to the most common name for this blizzard. -- Powers T 17:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Oppose There are two features of the proposed title which are clearly bad and should be avoided if at all possible, unless it can be shown that this title is overwhelmingly common. Firstly, abbreviated years should be avoided, were there no blizzards in 1877, 1777? Secondly, was this the only blizzard in the world in 1977, not even in e.g. Russia? PatGallacher ( talk) 15:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
This needs expansion, it's missing coverage of other areas, you'd never know it hit Illinois or Michigan, if you read this article only. There's also not enough information outside of Buffalo.
See this newspaper article: [2]
76.66.195.196 ( talk) 03:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Look, the results above aside, the current title ("Great Lakes Blizzard of 1977") is simply and irrefutably not a common name for this blizzard. The article cannot remain at this title. It must be moved to something. Even "Blizzard of '77 (Buffalo)" would be preferable. Is there something we could all agree upon? Powers T 19:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
In Search Of had a show that featured this blizzard. Season II, show 23 It's on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4SPY-TlYGE (three parts) Don't know if it can be a source, but anyone interested in this topic should enjoy watching it. FX ( talk) 13:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Move. I cogitated on this one for a long time. Not only do the supporters of the move have a plurality of !votes, but they correctly point out that this is the most common name for the storm (furthermore, I find no other storms called by this name), and Wikipedia guidelines not ask for a geographic descriptor when there is an unambiguous common name. Finally, a side note from me: The most common geographic descriptor for this blizzard is "Buffalo Blizzard", not "Great Lakes Blizzard" -- a name which I actually find slightly misleading because the storm's impact was only in the eastern Great Lakes. Orlady ( talk) 03:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Great Lakes Blizzard of 1977 → Blizzard of 1977 — I propose this alternative move, in the interests of just getting this article moved somewhere, and away from its current title, which receives precisely zero hits on Google News Archives. (The title does get two hits on Google Books, but they're both from Books LLC, which takes its content from Wikipedia.) The current title of this article is not a name that has ever been used for this event in any reliable source I can find. Period. It has to move.
I would prefer what is undoubtedly the most common name for this storm, Blizzard of '77, which already redirects here, but despite the fact that it already redirects here, that title has received opposition. Thus, I propose Blizzard of 1977, which at least has the virtue of being in use by reliable sources, if not as commonly as the abbreviated version.
-- Powers T 13:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
The next time a titling argument like this comes up, consider consulting google's usage summary from books, which supports "blizzard of 1977"; or compare other alternatives there. Dicklyon ( talk) 01:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Knowing that there had been snow as far south as Miami, I would consider this to also be a natural disaster in Florida. This is a good article to read for those who say, "Florida never gets snow." See also- List of snow events in Florida.-- Kevjgav ( talk) 10:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Blizzard of '77. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Back in the day (for some value of day), but not necessarily associated with the blizzard of 77, I heard reports that Buffalo didn't necessarily always plow (all?) the streets but, that, instead it was quite common to drive on roads with quite thick ice / packed snow. I vaguely recall that they sometimes mentioned thicknesses up to 18".
I'd like to track down a reference / citation to the above. I have done some googling with no luck, so if someone can help confirm reports like that, I would appreciate it.
(Aside: I heard such reports on the radio, I'm sure, as I did not have a TV at the time and listened to the radio while driving an hour or more to or from work (in West Virginia).)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on January 28, 2017. |
It would appear a user made extreme edits to certain parts of this page on one day about a month ago. It seems that large amounts of information were removed in these edits without any indication that the information is thought to be irrelevant or incorrect. Also a change in the referencing method has left the article with different referencing methods in different parts of the paper (as discussed below in the references section). Any opinions about reverting back to the 16 September version? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snincr ( talk • contribs) 19:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
This article needs serious clean-up. bob rulz 06:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
This article keeps cutting off because it's insanely long. I'll be back tomorrow to fix it. Vesperholly 09:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Getting them off the main page for the moment Vesperholly 19:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, it looks like consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#How_to_cite... is that we should go back to (Author Year). Apparently they are trying to work on getting a form of (Author Year) that would actually link to the main reference, which I think would be awesome. As that's not ready yet, however, i guess we should just change em back. I'm going to transcribe this debate to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Meteorology to find out what to do about other articles. - Runningonbrains 12:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Dunc1ca 11:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC) The standard for measuring snowfall is centimetres while millimetres is standard for rainfall. I have added conversions to imperial units to comply with Wikipedia's guidelines.
The result of the move request was no consensus for move. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 14:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Great Lakes Blizzard of 1977 → Blizzard of '77 — Common name. Powers T 14:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.A few days ago I saw that this article was posted as needing serious cleanup. For one thing there are no footnotes.
I started by Googling for information on the storm; since it happened in 1977 there's not a lot on the web. I did find some information and am incorporating my information (with footnotes) where appropriate.
I've been doing work on it section by section, and will continue to do so unless I hear diffently.
Today I plan to tackle the section "Onset" and will subsection it into Friday morning, Friday afternoon and Friday evening. This should help make the section less daunting and easier to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettymnz4 ( talk • contribs) 17:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I've been working on this article.
I have worked on:
- Winter of 1976-1977 - Antecedent weather - Prelude - Onset - all of it.
1. I'm inserting footnotes for material that I have references for. There is not alot of info on the web. I wasn't successful in searching the web for the references given originally. Where I do have information, I usually slightly reword that segment so it fits my source better; then I footnote it.
In one of the talk pages someone mentioned a frustration about how the footnoting was done for this article.
2. In the Onset section, I broke it up into Friday morning, Friday afternoon and Friday evening. With that I moved one block of text about airplanes not being able to move up to morning.
Shall I continue my work, or am I completely off base?!!
Thank you for your feedback. Bettymnz4 ( talk) 01:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
My goals evolved to be:
I believe that the hyperlinks need looking at (some are overlinked, IMHO); the categories should be checked, also. Bettymnz4 ( talk) 03:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I did alot of bareaking the article into many more sections to make it more readable, copy editing and sentence-by-sentence footnoting. I believe it is comprehensive. Overlinking needs to be looked at, as well as the categories. Bettymnz4 ( talk) 04:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: closed, no consensus for a move billinghurst sDrewth 17:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Great Lakes Blizzard of 1977 → Blizzard of '77 — Okay, I know I tried this before, but I really don't think it got a fair hearing. There are several things to consider here:
For all of these reasons, the page should be moved away from an uncommonly used phrase and moved to the most common name for this blizzard. -- Powers T 17:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Oppose There are two features of the proposed title which are clearly bad and should be avoided if at all possible, unless it can be shown that this title is overwhelmingly common. Firstly, abbreviated years should be avoided, were there no blizzards in 1877, 1777? Secondly, was this the only blizzard in the world in 1977, not even in e.g. Russia? PatGallacher ( talk) 15:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
This needs expansion, it's missing coverage of other areas, you'd never know it hit Illinois or Michigan, if you read this article only. There's also not enough information outside of Buffalo.
See this newspaper article: [2]
76.66.195.196 ( talk) 03:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Look, the results above aside, the current title ("Great Lakes Blizzard of 1977") is simply and irrefutably not a common name for this blizzard. The article cannot remain at this title. It must be moved to something. Even "Blizzard of '77 (Buffalo)" would be preferable. Is there something we could all agree upon? Powers T 19:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
In Search Of had a show that featured this blizzard. Season II, show 23 It's on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4SPY-TlYGE (three parts) Don't know if it can be a source, but anyone interested in this topic should enjoy watching it. FX ( talk) 13:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Move. I cogitated on this one for a long time. Not only do the supporters of the move have a plurality of !votes, but they correctly point out that this is the most common name for the storm (furthermore, I find no other storms called by this name), and Wikipedia guidelines not ask for a geographic descriptor when there is an unambiguous common name. Finally, a side note from me: The most common geographic descriptor for this blizzard is "Buffalo Blizzard", not "Great Lakes Blizzard" -- a name which I actually find slightly misleading because the storm's impact was only in the eastern Great Lakes. Orlady ( talk) 03:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Great Lakes Blizzard of 1977 → Blizzard of 1977 — I propose this alternative move, in the interests of just getting this article moved somewhere, and away from its current title, which receives precisely zero hits on Google News Archives. (The title does get two hits on Google Books, but they're both from Books LLC, which takes its content from Wikipedia.) The current title of this article is not a name that has ever been used for this event in any reliable source I can find. Period. It has to move.
I would prefer what is undoubtedly the most common name for this storm, Blizzard of '77, which already redirects here, but despite the fact that it already redirects here, that title has received opposition. Thus, I propose Blizzard of 1977, which at least has the virtue of being in use by reliable sources, if not as commonly as the abbreviated version.
-- Powers T 13:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
The next time a titling argument like this comes up, consider consulting google's usage summary from books, which supports "blizzard of 1977"; or compare other alternatives there. Dicklyon ( talk) 01:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Knowing that there had been snow as far south as Miami, I would consider this to also be a natural disaster in Florida. This is a good article to read for those who say, "Florida never gets snow." See also- List of snow events in Florida.-- Kevjgav ( talk) 10:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Blizzard of '77. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Back in the day (for some value of day), but not necessarily associated with the blizzard of 77, I heard reports that Buffalo didn't necessarily always plow (all?) the streets but, that, instead it was quite common to drive on roads with quite thick ice / packed snow. I vaguely recall that they sometimes mentioned thicknesses up to 18".
I'd like to track down a reference / citation to the above. I have done some googling with no luck, so if someone can help confirm reports like that, I would appreciate it.
(Aside: I heard such reports on the radio, I'm sure, as I did not have a TV at the time and listened to the radio while driving an hour or more to or from work (in West Virginia).)