Jump to content
Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia

Talk:2011 Groundhog Day blizzard

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 6 months ago by ~2026-52829-3 in topic Unreferenced Data Source
A fact from 2011 Groundhog Day blizzard appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 9 February2011. The text of the entry was as follows: A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Did you know archive/2011/February.
icon
Wikipedia
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject icon Canada Mid‐importance
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject icon Chicago Mid‐importance
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago , which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject icon Illinois High‐importance
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject icon Mexico Low‐importance
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject icon Michigan Low‐importance
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather , which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Non-tropical storms task force (assessed as High-importance).
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Indiana (assessed as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Ohio (assessed as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as Mid-importance).
WikiProject icon Wisconsin Low‐importance
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a project which is currently considered to be inactive .2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s
Text or other creative content from this version of 2011 Groundhog Day Blizzard was copied or moved into January 31–February 2, 2011 North American winter storm with this edit on 04:20, 2 February 2011. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Long-term view

[edit ]
Latest comment: 15 years ago 2 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: 15 years ago 2 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: 15 years ago 5 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: 15 years ago 3 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. →GƒoleyFour06:41, 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: 15 years ago 3 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: 15 years ago 4 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: 15 years ago 1 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: 15 years ago 2 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: 10 years ago 1 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.

[画像:check]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 II Talk to my owner:Online 13:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC) Reply

[edit ]
Latest comment: 9 years ago 1 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: 9 years ago 1 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: 8 years ago 1 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: 8 years ago 1 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

Unreferenced Data Source

[edit ]
Latest comment: 6 months ago 1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi all — the snowfall section is currently tagged as unreferenced.

I maintain a site that publishes daily snowfall and precipitation values sourced directly from NOAA NCEI datasets (GHCN-Daily / ASOS). The values are reproduced without modification, and the original NOAA datasets are linked on each page.

Would it be acceptable to use one of these pages as a reference for the snowfall totals listed here?

Happy to adjust or provide additional primary NOAA links if preferred. ~2026-52829-3 (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /