Talk:North American blizzard of 2006

message: Should the Impact section be organized by region ("Washington, D.C.", "New Jersey") or by category ("Utilities", "Transportation")? --AySz88^-^ 20:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on how much we get from each region. Personally though, I would organize it by region - in line with other weather event pages. CrazyC83 20:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Impact organization

message: Shouldn't this, along with all the other blizzard articles on Wikipedia, be renamed American Blizzard of 2006 (or whatever the year was)?. The current titles are rather US centric. BillyH 22:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking that; probably "Northeast U.S. Blizzard of 2006". --AySz88^-^ 00:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved it to the current title (North American blizzard of 2006) so that the current "Blizzard of <year>" articles in :Category:Blizzards can be moved to more descriptive titles and still be named in a series. -- AJR | Talk 01:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: I said to myself at 10:00 this morning...."Should I create the article?" Eight hours later, I typed it in the search, thinking the same thing. But.....you guys are good, man! :) Good work! Deckiller 23:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking about creating it late last night, but the original forecast of 8-15 inches of snow was a borderline case for the densely populated area. With what transpired, the article was definitely justified. Having worked at many weather-related articles (mainly with hurricanes) before, we've been able to make this in line with all the other weather event articles. CrazyC83 23:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow 

message: *What about the storm's impact on Connecticut?  From what I see, it has hit pretty bad here.  Unless there is not sufficient information, please add it. --G VOLTT 23:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't found any information specific to Connecticut, but it should be added - it would be the first subsection in the Impact section, as it is organized in alphabetical order. If the storm continues into Atlantic Canada tomorrow (it's possible), where that goes is up for debate. CrazyC83 23:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to my local news source (turnto10.com) they got around 17 inches in some areas. Then again, that report also states that Rhode Island only received 14 inches. Deckiller 23:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I live right on the New York/ Connecticut border and the snowfall totaled to 31" with snow drifts of 44". Quite the storm, most of it fell overnight. The news reporters said that the road crews had to give up with clearing the roads because the snow was falling too fast, up to 4 inches an hour at times. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connecticut? 

message: Current forecasts there are for lesser amounts of snow (6-12 inches/15-30 cm) but with winds gusting up to 50 mph (80 km/h) in general, except up to 70 mph (110 km/h) on the Atlantic coast of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. CrazyC83 01:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next to be affected: Atlantic Canada 

message: In this article, I noticed that every picture is from New York City. Other cities should also have pictures, since this storm didn't only affect New York. Faz90 02:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly agreed, except we need to find them. One per section if it gets developed enough. CrazyC83 03:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely think each region should have a pic. Just need everyone to submit pics from their respective regional sections. Uris 03:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New York Bias- Pictures 

message: When I was watching the Weather Channel, I noticed they said and showed what the blizzard's official name was. But I could not write it down and didn't remember all of it. It was something like; "Southeastern New England Pre-Valentine Blizzard of 2006" (quite a mouthful!). Can anybody confirm this?Icelandic Hurricane 12:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd keep it as is, with the only possibly modification is changing 2006 to February 2006 (title becoming North American blizzard of February 2006) if necessary. CrazyC83 05:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If there really is an official name like that, it should be noted, but something like "Southeastern etc etc etc" is too long.  Per WP:NC, it'd probably be a bad idea to use the official name as the article's title.  "North American blizzard" is kinda misleading, though, since the blizzard didn't cover anywhere close to most of North America. --AySz88^-^ 05:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Especially with another major blizzard on its way in the Plains...makes it even more misleading. Maybe just make the blizzard plural and let this article cover everything if all gets bad again... CrazyC83 19:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always thought that it should be renamed Nor'Easter of 2006. Of course, not everybody knows what a Nor'Easter is, so would that be a good idea? bob rulz 07:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Official name

message: I like this page so much that I feel that it should be nominated as a Featured Article. Anyone agree or disagree? CrazyC83 01:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say peer review first, and check if people injected unverified numbers into the snow depth table. --AySz88^-^ 02:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article nomination? 

message: I don't know who gave the name to this article but it is too vague. There is many blizzards in North America every year. This one has affected the EastCoast of the US and the Canadian Maritimes and should be named in this fashion. It did not affect the whole of the continent and many persons can claim that there was an equally devastating blizzard in the Prairies, in Ontario or in the Great Plaines in 2006 and it was not that one! Pierre cb 03:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong title

message: I think if you want to have this pass GA, then you probably want to shorten the intro, without losing any info. Plus, I think a storm history section should be made. íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 22:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Todo

message: * "As the system completed bombogenesis..." - note the red link. Given that, it is essential you quickly define your term.
* "Three casulties occurred as a result of the snow" but it goes on to list fatalities. a casualty is just an injury, and, well, is it provable noone received a minor injury because of the snow? Is this even countable? Better to say "Three deaths"
* "A total of 18 inches (46 cm) fell in the small Sandy Hook village."  Given significantly higher amounts of snow elsewhere in Connecticut, and words like "small" and "village", it's hard to see why this is being mentioned.
* "Kent and Sussex counties to the south mixed with rain for a while" Horrible phrasing!
* "The Greater New York City Area received the brunt of the February Blizzard of 2006. All three of the airports in the New York City area (LaGuardia Airport, John F. Kennedy International Airport and Newark Liberty International Airport) were closed during the record blizzard, for the first time since the September 11, 2001 attacks. Like the Blizzard of 1996, this winter storm does not meet the criteria to be called a blizzard, however."  The discussion of whether it is or isn't a blizzard is odly placed - seems more appropriate to the opening, and if it isn't a blizzard, don't call it such one paragraph above. 
* "It could take two days for utility crews to fully restore service to as many as 300,000 customers." Don't use a conditional ("could") when you're reporting what actually happened. "It would take two days for utility crews to fully restore service to reportedly as many as 300,000 customers." would read a lot better.
* "But in contrast, in Western Pennsylvania most got 1" or less of snow." - overloaded with qualifiers. At the least remove the word "but". Suggest a fuller re-write, e.g. "However, in Western Pennsylvania snowfall was generally less than 1" deep."
* The Rhode Island section has a "Citation needed" tag. It is impossible to pass GA with this remaining uncited. 
* If you're doing state by state for the USA, it seems like inappropriate Americentricism to combine all of the Canadian provinces into one group. Either redo how the American states are divided up (e.g. by dividing into groups which saw similar effects from the storm) or otherwise remove the appearance of bias against Canada. I mean, you give snowfall in dozens of cities and towns in America, then hit Canada and just give a few quick notes. Possible suggestion: Cut all or most of the snowfall notes, replace with a snowfall map, and instead just keep the effect of the snow. 
*Observed accumulations: Not a mention of Canada again. 
* "However, it is common in the New York metropolitan area for the city's schools to remain open after snowstorms while the suburban schools close because in the city there is the option of riding underground subways whose movement is not appreciably affected by snowfall." Awkward phrasing.
In short, the prose is not sufficiently readable, the organisation of the state-by-state coverage poor, the dearth of Canadian information means it is not broad in its coverage, and it could really use some sort of snowfall map, even one made yourselves that just listed snowfall readings in the appropriate locations would be useful. 
At the moment, this article cannot pass GA. However, the opening section is quite strong (if, again, missing Canada), and the facts (except Canadian) are well-documented and useful. I'm putting the article on hold, as it's not too far from GA. Please leave me a note in my talk page when ready for a re-review. Adam Cuerden talk 23:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nomination was withdrawn. More work will need to be done. CrazyC83 05:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed the "bombogenesis" wording.  One item can be scratched off the list.  =)  Thegreatdr 19:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review

message: It would be interesting for someone to add something about Quebec, considering that the winter in Quebec is green when it's usually home to more snow than most (if not every) areas affected by this blizzard. --67.68.21.163 06:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quebec 

message: I married my husband on Sunday February 12th, 2006 in Easton, PA. The wedding stayed on schedule despite the storm. I lived in Somerset, NJ and had much reason to worry how to get on the interstate from my parents' house to the church. The 50-mile trip along the interstates was tough but we all got there. It's the most memorable day of my life and I got the best outdoor decorations -- lots of snow! And it was fun being seen by other passengers who smiled as they saw me in the car.
Ruok9c 23:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank u for this info. Why don't you tell us how deep the snow was in Easton? This might be a good thing to add in the Article. 76.124.224.179 (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The impact of this blizzard was personal for me 

message: What are the windspeeds of the storm? I am sure the peak winds are hurricane force or strong-tropical-storm force. 76.124.224.179 (talk) 19:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Winds? 

message: Do you think we should put a track for this storm? Typhoon2013 (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Track of the storm 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on North American blizzard of 2006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070927183330/http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0206/302074.html to http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0206/302074.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070929103200/http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/13856095.htm to http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/13856095.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110611122609/http://www.erh.noaa.gov/er/car/WCM/latest_storm/pns.txt to http://www.erh.noaa.gov/er/car/WCM/latest_storm/pns.txt
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified