Talk:Blizzard of 1977

message: 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)
replies: text: Since this comment has been here about a week with no comment, this has been done. Snincr 03:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert?

message: This article needs serious clean-up. bob rulz 06:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Herculean task, will attempt in human-sized bites. Started. Vesperholly 08:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ugh

message: 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)
thread_title: ARGH

message: Dunc1ca 11:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct units of measure 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *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.
* Oppose Wikipedia should take a non-parochial view. As Juliancolton says, there were surely other places that had blizzards in 1977. Jan1naD (talk • contrib) 15:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: 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)
thread_title:  I've started rewording this article [[User:Bettymnz4|Bettymnz4]] ([[User talk:Bettymnz4|talk]]) 17:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC) 

message: 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)
replies: text: I'm sure it's fine.  Powers T 18:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'll continue working on the article. Thanks. Bettymnz4 (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Am I on the right path? 

message: My goals evolved to be:
#Copyedit according to MoS and minor rewording 
#Use convert templates
#Make it easier to read by subdividing 'Onset' into Friday morning, Friday afternoon and Friday evening. I also subdivided 'Duration and cleanup' into Saturday, Sunday, Monday and the next seven days.
#Since a main concern was the lack of footnotes, I did a quick Google search to obtain some sources. I wasn't too successful (the storm happened before the web); plus my sources aren't as verifiable as the original author's were.
#After I had worked my information into the text, with footnotes, it dawned on me that I could use the original author's reference list and page numbers to create footnotes, so I did that.
#Expanded the lead
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)
thread_title:  I have finished with my goals for this article: 

message: 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)
thread_title: Article

message: 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: 
76.66.195.196 (talk) 03:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other areas 

message: 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)
replies: text: And where is everyone who opposed the move now?  Powers T 12:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Several of the people do do stuff on Wikipedia, if you check their edit histories. Now what about Illinois then? You didn't respond to the section above either. Nor have you worked on the article. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 07:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: 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)
thread_title:  TV show featuring this blizzard 

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
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)
replies: text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
===Usage in books===
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)
thread_title:  This page title cannot stay 

message: 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)
thread_title: Usage in books

message: 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)
thread_title: Snow in Miami FL

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120315171753/http://www.buffaloblizzardbook.com/ to http://www.buffaloblizzardbook.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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).) 
Rhkramer (talk) 14:50, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help: Driving on unplowed roads