Talk:Blizzard of 1977

Revert?

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)

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

Ugh

This article needs serious clean-up. bob rulz 06:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Herculean task, will attempt in human-sized bites. Started. Vesperholly 08:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

ARGH

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)

References

Getting them off the main page for the moment Vesperholly 19:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Does anybody know why some of the references have been changed to a footnote style instead of the (Author Year) style this article previously had? The Wikipedia "Citing Sources" page indicates that one should "follow the established practice for the appropriate profession or discipline that the article is concerning". It would seem that the American Meterological Society standard for their journals would be the relevant style and that was the former style of referencing in this article (and still for some of the article). Snincr 19:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe what they are referring to is citing sources at the end of the article. To improve the flow of pages on wikipedia it is recommended that pages be written with footnotes instead of actual inline citation (i.e. author year). It just seems to be convention. However, you do bring up a good point...I will mention it at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources, as the way it is worded now is very confusing. -Runningonbrains 16:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It is decidedly not recommended that pages be written with footnotes instead of Harvard referencing. Both systems are perfectly acceptable. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:39, 25 October 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)

Personally, I would much prefer to see this article converted to footnote style. It's rather annoying to have references stuck in the text every few words, and most articles on the encyclopedia use the footnote style. -- Beland 04:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this has to be the most annoying artice on Wikipedia because of the inline sources, please use footnotes. -- Shattersoul 12:57, 13 January 2007

Correct units of measure

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.

Requested move (2009)

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 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)

Survey

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)
• Sorry, I'm going to have to object as well. There were many blizzards in 1977, and this one isn't so overwhelmingly noteworthy as to necessitate occupying a "main" title. Furthermore, '77 is informal. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Can you show some other blizzards that are both a) referred to as "the Blizzard of '77" and b) equally noteworthy? Powers ^T 18:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • And separate from that, can you show anyone who actually refers to this as the "Great Lakes Blizzard of 1977"? Powers ^T 20:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, Current name seems most appropriate, as per WP:PRECISION.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Can you explain how WP:PRECISION supports the current name. It says to be only as precise as needed. Powers ^T 14:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Surely there was more than one blizzard in 1977? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • But apparently none of them have articles. We don't preemptively disambiguate. Powers ^T 16:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Why not? Jan1naD ^{(talk • contrib)} 17:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Because it's unnecessary. Our naming conventions favor brevity and commonality. "Blizzard of '77" is by far the common name for this particular blizzard; we should only deviate from WP:UCN when we have good reason to. Powers ^T 18:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• I also note that Blizzard of '77 redirects here already, so there should be no "primary topic" concerns at all. In addition, note that the article Blizzard of 1966 has no unneeded disambiguation. Powers ^T 14:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

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.

I've started rewording this article Bettymnz4 (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

Am I on the right path?

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)

I'm sure it's fine. Powers ^T 18:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll continue working on the article. Thanks. Bettymnz4 (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I have finished with my goals for this article:

My goals evolved to be:

1. Copyedit according to MoS and minor rewording
2. Use convert templates
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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)

Article

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)

Requesting the move again (2010)

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: 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:

1. The term "Great Lakes Blizzard of 1977" is not a common name for this blizzard. It's not unheard of, but it's hardly common. "Buffalo Blizzard of '77" is more common, but the most common certainly seems to be just "Blizzard of '77".
2. Blizzard of '77 already redirects to this article, so there should be no question that this is already the primary topic for the term. Yes, there were likely other blizzards in 1977, but either they do not have articles, or they are not called "Blizzard of '77".
3. Our guidelines clearly state that article titles should be precise, but only as precise as needed. Because we have no other articles about blizzards in years ending "77", there is no need to add additional precision to the established common name. (If there was, the redirect would go to a disambiguation page anyway.)

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)

I have no objection. (I was the last one to make major changes to the article by subsectioning the looooooong sections and footnoting.)Bettymnz4 (talk) 19:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment why "77" instead of "1977" ? There was apparently a big blizzard in 1877. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 03:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Use of '77 rather than 1977 is a bit too informal to be a good encyclopaedia article title, even if it is sufficiently precise and unambiguous. I would not oppose a move to Blizzard of 1977 though. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 10:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Where does "formality" appear in the naming conventions? The relevant guideline is WP:COMMONNAME. Powers ^T 12:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
    • How about:
      • Avoid abbreviations (WP:Title)
      • Avoid accent-/quote-like characters - the apostrophe should be used sparingly (WP:Title)
      • Avoid abbreviations when they might ... appear informal (WP:MOS)
      • The two-digit form, to which a preceding apostrophe should be added, is used only in reference to a social era or cultural phenomenon (slightly off-topic, as this is talking about decades not years, but I'd argue the principle can be generalised)(WP:DECADE)

-- chris_j_wood (talk) 16:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The latter two apply to prose; I'm not sure to what extent they apply to article titles, for which WP:COMMONNAME seems more important. Take, for example, That '70s Show, Roaring Twenties, Gay Nineties, etc. The important thing is that people don't call it the "Blizzard of 1977". The common form is, simply, "Blizzard of '77". If that title is ambiguous, so be it, but so far no one has shown any evidence that disambiguation is necessary. Powers ^T 17:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, they DO call it the Blizzard of 1977; Google News Search ; 76.66.195.196 (talk) 21:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Occasionally, but not nearly as often as "Blizzard of '77". [1]. Apologies for the slight hyperbole. Powers ^T 00:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Year formation aside, without the "Great Lakes" the title seems too vague to locate. Dimadick (talk) 08:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • That's not a requirement of our naming scheme. The title only has to be unambiguous among our articles; it does not have to unambiguously describe the topic within the space of all possible things. And as I pointed out, the current title is not one that is in wide use, clearly violating WP:COMMONNAME. Powers ^T 12:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
• Just to reiterate -- "Blizzard of '77" already redirects here, so there should be no question of ambiguity. And "Great Lakes Blizzard of 1977" is not a name in common use for this blizzard. Powers ^T 02:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The relevant guidance for article titles is set out at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events): If there is an established, universally agreed-upon common name for an event, use that name. Otherwise, create a name using these guidelines. In most cases, the title of the article should contain at least the following two descriptors: Where the incident happened; What happened. If these descriptors are not sufficient to identify the event unambiguously, a third descriptor should be added: When the incident happened. The year ("when") should not be used in the title unless other descriptors are insufficient to establish the identity of the incident. We have already established that there is not a "universally agreed-upon common name" for this event, just that one name is supposedly more common than the other. In that case, the guidance is to create a title including where and what. The year is only to be used if it is necessary to disambiguate from other similar events in the same location. On that basis there seems no justification for the proposed move. Skinsmoke (talk) 03:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I think your bar for "universally agreed-upon" is far too high. Nothing is ever truly universal. "Blizzard of '77" is about as close to universally agreed-upon as it gets. No one disputes which blizzard is being referenced by that name (thus the redirect). Powers ^T 15:09, 7 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)

It doesn't matter if there were other blizzards, because none of them have articles (see September 11 attacks; no one says "well were there no other attacks that have ever occurred on September 11?"). And as for common names, consider the Google News searches mentioned above: 4,540 for "Blizzard of '77" versus 116 for "Blizzard of 1977" and a huge, whopping ZERO for the current title. The current title is a hack, a ridiculous name that no one uses except, for some reason, the people on Wikipedia. Powers ^T 22:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

(To head off complaints, if I add "Buffalo" to the search terms, the numbers go down to 2,990 and 105 respectively. Still overwhelming.) Powers ^T 22:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, Pat? Do you need more evidence that my proposed title is overwhelmingly the most common name for this blizzard? Powers ^T 01:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

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.

Other areas

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)

Title

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)

And where is everyone who opposed the move now? Powers ^T 12:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

TV show featuring this blizzard

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)

This page title cannot stay

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)

---

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)

• Oppose we recently went over this already, the proposed title is still to North-America-centric, were there no blizzards in e.g. Russia in 1977? PatGallacher (talk) 15:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, you made the point before, sure, but you never responded to my rebuttal. I'm sure there were blizzards elsewhere in the world, but we don't have articles for them. Would you prefer Blizzard of 1977 (Great Lakes)? Doesn't it strike you as odd to include a disambiguator where none is necessary? Remember, Blizzard of '77 already redirects here. There is no question of primary topic. Powers ^T 15:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support per nom and comment immediately above. If articles on the other blizzards get written, the page can be disambiguated then. Right now, it's not warranted especially since the title appears unused outside of Wikipedia. — AjaxSmack 00:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • That's all I've been saying. I'm still waiting for some of the many opposers to suggest a name that they would support. Powers ^T 12:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Agreed with Ajax. No reason to prevent a DAB conflict before one exists. Primary topic gets the page until otherwise indicated. Ocaasi (talk) 08:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support This is the primary topic, and should therefore get the page title. If a name is not used in any source and is basically an invention of Wikipedia itself, it should not be used. --WikiDonn (talk) 16:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I came here as a WP:NAC, but the one single oppose makes me hesitate. So I will do the next best thing and add support for the move, as the sourcing is clear about what the title should be, and there were no other blizzards that year that seem to be notable enough for wikipedia.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, A geographical marker seems entirely appropriate, as per WP:PRECISION. As per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) an event name should by convention "contain at least the following two descriptors: Where the incident happened; What happened." Blizzard of 1977 rubs me as being rather North American centric, as concern that has been voiced by others in the past. Frankly my view is that the title should be Great Lakes blizzard of 1977 (blizzard in lowercase) but I can live with it in uppercase.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
  • You neglected to quote the first sentence from that section, which says "If there is an established, universally agreed-upon common name for an event, use that name." There is clearly an established common name for this event, and it doesn't have "Great Lakes" in it. Powers ^T 23:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Two google books citations hardly makes it an established and or universally agreed upon-name. There are, after all, sources that employ the current title: [3][4][5]. A descriptive name is simply more appropriate than a colloquial one. --Labattblueboy (talk) 00:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
      • As I said in the nomination, those Google Books results are Wikipedia mirrors. You can't use them to support this name. Powers ^T 02:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I am in England and to me the name means nothing unless it says where the blizzard happened. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't understand this argument. The title need only uniquely identify the article's topic; it doesn't have to provide context for people unfamiliar with the topic. That's the job of the lede. Powers ^T 23:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

Snow in Miami FL

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)

External links modified

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.

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) 23:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Help: Driving on unplowed roads

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)