Talk:February 2007 North America Winter Storm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the February 2007 North America Winter Storm article.
Article policies
Good article February 2007 North America Winter Storm has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] The US is the laughing stock of Canada ?!

- - First of all, all of you who say this storm was no big deal are dead wrong, at least 20 DEAD from the storm. Now I didn't know any of them, but somebody did, and thats a big deal. It was the 3rd largest storm I have seen in Central IL, and I am 39. From a Central Illinois perspective, this storm CERTAINLY merits an article. Maybe I'll make one. - - As far as Canadians laughing at the US about a snowstorm, that seems a little ridiculous. If you want to laugh at us about our PRESIDENT, then you just go right ahead, as he has done more damage with HIS snowjobs than any snowstorm, ever.

More then that probably die due to snow and snowstorm related tragedies here in Canada. Heart attacks and such from shoveling snow. This happens every year. 74.56.165.54 00:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, during an entire winter. This wasn't an entire winter. This was a single storm that lasted about 2 days. Death toll is up to 29 now, by the way. bob rulz 03:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Are you an idiot? How many weeks has it been since people started dying? Seriously, we lose people at that rate most winters. I can't imagine what it would be in places like Russia. 72.1.206.17 16:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
This storm caused deaths, where there arguably would NOT have been deaths if this storm did not occur- yeah- see? Canadia gets more snow so Canadia has more deaths from it. The point is that it is UNUSUAL to have a storm of this severity in, at least, the part of the US that I live in. So thats what made it significant! Eureka! Success at last. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.113.205.130 (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Name of article

Ok. Though I like this name, has any organization actually named this system, other than HPC? HPC is referring to it simply as MIDWEST AND NORTHEAST U.S. WINTER STORM. Ultimately, I know that the name with the most links on the internet "wins" on wikipedia. The problem is, if we create an article during an event like this, we may drive the amount of links for this name on the internet, which in essence creates a name for a storm, which I thought was to be avoided (original work). Encyclopedias certainly don't name events themselves. Thegreatdr 13:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think wikipedia is more than an encyclopedia now. But anyway, last year with that Nor'easter around the same time, I remember the weather channel said it had some really long official name that I couldn't catch quickly enough to write down. It was very similar to this name, so maybe this name came from the weather channel. icelandic hurricane #12 (talk) 13:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
This means we should link to the Weather Channel, if it has an article on their internet site that shows this name. That would resolve the problem nicely. Thegreatdr 13:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I see the name February Fury used a lot 76.188.77.31

"2007" has to be somewhere in the title. Also, this isn't officially a "blizzard" from the HPC, or Environment Canada, is it? If it isn't, we shouldn't be using that term. – Chacor 03:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


  • I've moved it to 2007 mid-February Eastern North America winter storm. Firstly, it's not a blizzard - it hasn't been designated one by EC or the HPC yet, as far as I know. Secondly, 2007 HAS to be in the title. Thirdly, fix capitalisation. 4thly, Valentine's Day is not accurate, as effects started BEFORE, and will continue AFTER, Valentine's Day. If the HPC call it a winter storm, use the term "winter storm". Unfortunately, using any other month identifier would not work (due to the early February New York snow problem). – Chacor 03:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    • On the other hand, Labor Day Hurricane of 1935 lasted more than a week after Labor Day, and several days beforehand, and yet it is still named that. Just a random thought. Danthemankhan 04:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
      • That's what the NOAA calls it. There's no official nomenclature for this system yet that could be used encyclopedically, is there? No. – Chacor 05:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Many radio and television news stations have called it the valentine's day storm. I think that is very accurate, and it's worth noting in the title. Just because something doesn't occur on that specific date doesn't mean it mustn't be called that. It's a good title and I more to change it back to something like Valentine's Day Eastern North America winter storm of 2007. └Jared┘┌talk┐  20:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blizzard?

Again, HPC not saying it's a blizzard, neither can I find where EC says it's a blizzard, let's use the official terms and not media designations. – Chacor 15:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

According to NOAA it was a blizzard.... http://www.crh.noaa.gov/ilx/?n=13feb07

  • Central Illinois and Indiana were under Blizzard Warnings (issued by the National Weather Service during the brunt of this storm. Not Blizzard Watches. As I understand it, that means there were Blizzard conditions (at least for a time) while the warnings were in effect. Now if Blizzard Conditions doesn't mean Blizzard, then what does?

[edit] Cincinnati Ice Storm

There's has been nothing on the article about Cincinnati getting hit by an ice storm by the same storm system. The power situation is less than dire right now it's about 80,000 right now compared to 122,666 12 hours ago. Spongefan 14:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Southern US tornadoes

Should they be mentioned here as if they were a tornado article, since they were part of the same system, but not warranting an article on their own? CrazyC83 16:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. There's a lot of precedent on this project to keep severe/snow events as one page if they are the same storm. -RunningOnBrains 17:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accumulations - a table or a list

I was wondering if we can add a table or a list with snow amounts from selected locations (big cities and other areas that received major amounts).--JForget 00:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thought about it; I'll see if I can work something out. I'll try to emphasize "storm total" only, not a given 24 hour period (main storm + lake enhanced, not just lake effect). —Rob (talk) 04:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
If this is what "main storm" wording in the table implies, it's a poor choice of words, as we had two distinct storm systems here. And, to be honest, I still don't know if you want lake-effect snow included in the totals. I believe you do, and if you don't, well, you should :).
And so far, the highest snowfall totals I've seen are out of Albany CWA, here, which puts Stratford, in Fulton County, on top with 42" as of 9:15pm Wed night. Do we want these amounts included in the table, or is this just going to be major cities? WindRunner 14:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Wait, the highest accumulation I've seen was in Mexico, NY. I heard like 105 in. on CNN? Are you not counting it because it is lake effect?

That was all lake effect the week prior to this storm. The highest for the lake effect storm was over 120" and I think it was in Redfield, NY Darry2385 03:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

First, I've put brief mention of the lake-effect event in the Prior to the storm section. Secondly, I will start to put external links that will show snowfall amounts across various NWS coverage areaas.--JForget 18:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Storm Overblown

This storm turned out to be fairly average. Nothing particularly extraordinary about it. Yet another over-hyped "storm-of-the-century". Tmangray 04:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe in some places it was average, but I can tell you that in Central IL, it was anything but average. U of I closed, Local schools that have on average 1 snow day a year closed for 3 days straight and haven't reopened, sorry but 3 foot of snow in my driveway tells me this isn't just another snowstorm, at least not in IL. Also many records in IL that have stood since the Blizzard on '78 have been shattered by this one. (Colquhoun 05:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC))

Today all schools were closed in Boston, now its freezing wind, hopefully more so no school :-) Nareklm 05:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
lol, 3 feet. 74.56.165.54 23:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
lol, troll. bob rulz 03:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
lol, mirror 72.1.206.17 16:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

And once again another snow storm hits the east coast its the top story on all the national news shows. Jay Ann 05:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It was a big deal for a lot of people. I had to drive around upstate NY (Albany area) on Wednesday and it was horrible. The roads were really bad, people were stuck in drifts all over the area. People in Albany were getting their cars stuck in snow filled intersections. My college closed for a day and a half. I had to shovel a parking spot for myself. This storm was a big deal so you just shut your pie holes!--DannyBoy7783 06:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I know it's hard to see it as a big deal when it hasn't affected you and the pictures only show a foot or two of snow... but for cities that normally don't even see a foot of snow the entire winter season, seeing it all in one day is huge. The entire town of Champaign, IL (college town of the University of Illinois) was closed down completely on Tuesday (not just the city government, but most retail shops didn't open, you could watch major roads and see maybe a car an hour) -- the snow plows were running 24/7 and it took them an entire day after the snow stopped just to get the snow off the roads. Many of the cities that this storm affected simply weren't ready for a storm of this size because they really are that rare in the Midwest. Utopianheaven 06:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
A car in my neighborhood got buried by a snowplow, thats a first here. Ill take a picture if its still there later on today when it's light out. KeepOnTruckin 06:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

What does any of this have to do with the article? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-02-15 14:22Z

It's relevant because this storm really doesn't merit an article. It was not extraordinary in comparison to other really extraordinary storms. It wasn't even a blizzard. It seemed from the forecast of 2-3 feet of snow over the northeast plus 60 mph winds that it might be remarkable, but the forecast was a dud. I suggest that people check in with the National Weather Service rather than the tabloid-style "weathercasters" before posting such articles. Tmangray 15:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I'm not sure about the rest of the places hit, but I looked out the window this morning (Montreal), and I thought to myself "finally its a normal winter." and then I turn on wikipedia and read of a MAJOR winter storm.. well I guess it is major in some places, but storms of this magnitude are common and less storms than inconvieniences here. Although notably traffic deaths do unfortunately occur. anyways.. I just felt like responding. Basser g 16:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Seriously, I live in Ottawa and we see these conditions EVERY YEAR. Well, not this year, which is a first because usually these sort of things start happening in about November/December, and all we have seen is a few feet of snow. If this is a major storm, then rofl we have alot of articles to write about Canadian, Russian, Norwegian, Mongolian, etc. winters that behave like this every year, and probably more into the extreme. Specusci 17:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
In Ottawa and other cities where snow is frequent and deep, the city has budgeted significant funds to deal with it, the infrastructure (power, water, roads) is reinforced against it, and local governments have enough practice to deal efficiently with snow. This storm is significant in that it dumped decent amounts of snow in areas that get very little. Any unusual weather can be crippling. Where snow is the norm, a few feet is nothing. Did you know that the airport in Atlanta, Georgia is closed more often for snow than the one in Chicago, IL? It's all about what's normal and what's unusual. This storm also brought ice along it's southern track, which can be devastating to power lines, even where snow accumulation is unremarkable. MamaGeek (talk/contrib) 17:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the big numbers are coming out, 1 meter of snow north of Albany, over 2 feet in parts of New England (up to 3 feet locally), over 2 feet locally near the Golden Horseshoe in Ontario and 40-60 cm in parts of Quebec.--JForget 18:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


You guys are making a big deal out of a snow storm. Wait until you come live in Minnesota. Wikipedia would be overloaded with articles if everyone over-exaggerated as much as this. ~ UBeR 21:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You people do realize that just because the storm wasn't big where you live doesn't mean it wasn't big somewhere else? The whole world doesn't rebolve around your cities, people. bob rulz 08:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Apparently the world revolves around American cities, though. 74.56.165.54 23:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, next time there's a huge storm in Canada that's article-worthy, and you start arguing in its favor, I'll start complaining about it. Just for you. Apparently the world revolves around Canadian cities. bob rulz 04:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Last one was the 1998 Ice Storm, and I'm sure *no one* was going to argue against that. It would take a similar storm to become article-worthy up here. 72.1.206.17 16:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

MY STORM IS BETTER THAN YOUR STORM. Seriously people, name calling is getting us nowhere. The storm was remarkable in several areas: more than 3 feet of snow in a day is impressive no matter where you are, especially associated with an area of 1-foot snows which spanned half the continent, and it was associated with a tornado outbreak which caused fatalities. If Tropical Storm Lee (2005) gets an article, this one more than qualifies. End of discussion.-RunningOnBrains 15:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Three feet? Seriously, lol. 74.56.165.54 23:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Troll? Seriously, lol. bob rulz 03:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Just put down the mirror already. 72.1.206.17 16:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Come on, 1 meter of snow is nothing compared to Scandinavian standards! But the fact that approx. 20 people were killed is worth mentioning. I can agree with some of you, the world have gone paranoid on later days. One big storm and there are headlines everywhere. Even in Scandinavia, suck it up, we live in the northern hemisphere my brethren. I mean, the kids are at least happy. :) The Geat 02:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Headlines are about entertainment. It's entertaining to be constantly told that you live in exciting and dangerous times. The hassle of digging out your car becomes a fun and exciting exercise if you allow yourself to be convinced that you're surviving a dangerous adventure. APL

The article currently says 35 deaths - most of which were motor vehicle fatalities. Since the US average is approx 100 motor vehicle fatalities per day, is the 35 during this storm newsworthy because it is unusually high or low? Ralphbk 10:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You're that dumb aren't you. US average is the key words there. 35 just due to the storm, no other contributing factor. Upwards of 3 feet of snow combined with freezing rain, tornados, and a power outage in (that I know of) Cincinnati that is still not completely fixed is a pretty big deal in an area that normally never sees storms this big since... I think it was 97 that I last saw more than 3 feet of snow in my front yard. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 15:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
That's silly. How can there be "no other contributing factors"? You just said a large number of them were motor-vehicle accidents. It's entirely possible to drive through the snow without getting killed. (Millions of people did it in this very snow storm.) A good number of them were heart attacks as well. Snow doesn't cause otherwise healthy people to suddenly have heart attacks.
Also, 1997 was only a decade ago. If there was a 45kb article every time someone, somewhere got more snow/ice/wind/rain/sunlight/heat/cold than they've gotten in the last nine seasons it'd be a bloated, hilarious joke. APL 15:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the gratuitous insult. I'm guessing that a lot of people stayed at home rather than drive during the storm and so were spared the motor vehicle fatality they might otherwise have experienced. Whatever your opinion of my intelligence, I'd still be interested to compare the overall US daily road death figures in the presence and absence of snow. Ralphbk 16:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Update Required

Update is required, the storm is over. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AllStarZ (talk • contribs) 12:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Update required, article is pointless.Specusci 17:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] omg there's an article about this?

storms of this magnitude happen in Canada every winter. It's hilarious that this one individual storm has its own wikipedia entry! If somebody proposes it for deletion, I will vote to delete! Holy recentism! I remember notable snow storms from my childhood that easily had double the snowfall of this one, and I'm sure they don't have Wikipedia entries. What makes this single recent storm so special? Americans are funny. We should avoid for Wikipedia standards of notability to be too US-centric.--Sonjaaa 15:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It's notable, there are major effects, there's an article. If you want to, go complain over some of the nonsense articles we get over some non-notable person's recent death. Try searching around. More articles are being added about past storms. See also WP:NPA regarding that last bit you added in, btw. – Chacor 15:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Is my revision better?--Sonjaaa 15:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Because 1) it didn't happen liek 100 years ago, and 2) we still Blame Canada. Srsly, if you have verifiable sources for storms from your childhood, you're perfectly welcome to write articles about them. It's much easier to write about current storms because the sources are easier to find. —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 15:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Haha, I love the "cars unable to ascend a slope" photo. It's not even a slope! I guess Americans have no idea how to drive in winter/snowy conditions. All you have to do is slow down. Don't they sell winter tires there? Bencze Gyenge 12:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Here are examples. These are not even nordic Canadian cities. They are near American borders:

  • 7 March 1999, Moncton, New Brunswick: Canada's snowiest major city sets a new record for a one-day snowfall of 116 cm (45.7 inches), but prior to that date the winter's total had been a meager (for the city) 117 cm (46 inches)of snow.
  • 25 March 1961, Prince Edward Island: The fifth major snowstorm of the month prompts the provincial government to declare a state of emergency. Snow drifts of 10-metres (33 ft) or more reach overhead power lines.

Source: http://www.islandnet.com/~see/weather/almanac/diarymar.htm --Sonjaaa 15:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Go forth, young one, and write the Perfect winter storm article! —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 16:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to agree fully with the thread starter. Having an article about this is absolutely ridiculous. People may have died, people die during the winter every year here in Canada. Why, just last year, an elderly lady was found frozen to death in a snow bank in the city that I live in. Maybe there should be an article about the mild canadian winter we had last year.Specusci 17:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not the storm of the century (funny, that's not in the article anywhere), and it's not the worst storm in Chicago in the last ten years... but it's notable enough for the article to exist. It's caused more disruptions in the nation that your typical tropical storm, and yet we have articles for those, don't we? —Rob (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
How about this? All of you complaing about these storms in Canadia, go write something about them. And if an entry exists for them already, add to it. See, problem solved! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacific Coast Highway (talk • contribs)
Well, how many years has Canada existed? 150? And we get maybe 2 or 3 storms a year. So thats like 450 articles. Better get cracking... Specusci 06:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said in the "Storm Overblown" section above, "In Ottawa and other cities where snow is frequent and deep, the city has budgeted significant funds to deal with it, the infrastructure (power, water, roads) is reinforced against it, and local governments have enough practice to deal efficiently with snow. This storm is significant in that it dumped decent amounts of snow in areas that get very little. Any unusual weather can be crippling. Where snow is the norm, a few feet is nothing. Did you know that the airport in Atlanta, Georgia is closed more often for snow than the one in Chicago, IL? It's all about what's normal and what's unusual. This storm also brought ice along it's southern track, which can be devastating to power lines, even where snow accumulation is unremarkable." MamaGeek (talk/contrib) 18:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

- Perhaps then we shouldn't write articles about earthquakes in California when India recieves them too? I personally think things that are important in local hisotry shouldn't be ignored simply on the basis that it happens more commonly in another country. -EV

But those are far more destructive :3 Specusci 06:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
An event that's commonplace in one area may be extremely unusual elsewhere. Result? The former wouldn't merit and article, while the second one likely would. The users writing in from Medicine Hat, Canada (or wherever) who are using the "we get 40 feet of snow every year, so what?" argument must not understand this distinction.
Huwmanbeing 18:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

An article is certainly justified here, as this is the worst storm for my county since President's Day '03. It has closed schools for just as long, and even longer if they are closed tomorrow. The ice layers have refrozen enough to support the weight of a 5000 pound van . . . I've never seen anything like it around here. And this isn't even including the three and a half feet of snow in New York! Definately worthwhile. WindRunner 20:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hurricanes happen every year and nearly every hurricane gets an article. These sorts of storms are the equivalent to hurricanes in the winter. Maybe you dont think you will need this in the future, but people who study weather patterns and other things dealing with weather would certainly find this useful. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Not only is wikipedia not really a good source of scientific inquiry, but there are also far more thorough records being kept elsewhere. People seem to be confusing Wikipedia as a "record keeping vault" as opposed to an encyclopedic website. Which is what it is. We don't need to "keep a record" or "report the news", because well, Wikipedia isn't a news or record keeping website and there are news sites/channels and record keeping methods already in action across these areas. THIS DOES NOT NEED A WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE. 74.56.165.54 00:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, an article is justified, but on the other hand, it probably shouldn't be THIS article--i.e. a meticulous record of what times various public schools were closed! If anybody in this discussion has proposed a compromise between (1) covering the event, and (2) not being overly in-depth about it, then here's my vote of support. Figureground 23:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Any snow storm/tornado/stiff wind could have its own article, and some projects have deemed that they should. Someone just needs to start and update them. Thegreatdr 02:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you realize how many hundreds of articles there would be? Possibly thousands? All devoted to snow!? Specusci 06:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I do. A bet there are a number of people out there that would be willing to put them together too, similar to the tropical cyclone project on wikipedia. Thegreatdr 21:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
If there was a place that actually documented all of these and had info for them, then I'd be willing to do it. Unfortunately, there isn't a place that has exhaustive info for winter storms decades into the past like the NHC does for hurricanes. bob rulz 21:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, because those aren't really notable enough to deserve any public attention. Sort of like this storm. 74.56.165.54 00:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
If there was such a place as the National Blizzards and Nor'easter Center, such an article would exist online. Oh wait...that's HPC. Check our online archive, recently developed, which has data on significant storms for the United States from 2004 onward. Thegreatdr 20:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Plus, who cares if it happens all the time up in Canada? The point is that a storm of this magnitude is uncommon in the area it's in, i.e. East Coast/Midwest. If there were a rainstorm on the North Pole, that would be extremely newsworthy, even though rainstorms are common in many other parts of the world. Yes, I exaggerated this storms significance to make a point there. TK-925 05:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I dunno if you even live on the East Coast or not, but on the CANADIAN East Coast, they get even more snow then the prairies. 74.56.165.54 00:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
In a year, even the Americans will be looking at this article and going "Um...wtf?". It may seem significant right now, but seriously, it just really isn't. Specusci 06:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
"OMG! THERE'S BEEN STORMS BIGGER THAN THIS ONE! THIS STORM ISN'T NEWSWORTHY BECAUSE IT'S NOT THE STORM OF THE CENTURY!!" bob rulz 08:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say it wasn't newsworthy. I dunno where you think you are, but wikipedia isn't a news page. This article will be here for as long as wikipedia is here, and it is a severely trivial thing to be writing about. Let the news agencies handle it. Specusci 16:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
"This article will be here for as long as wikipedia is here..."
That's a pretty broad statement to make. If it's really that useless, it will (hopefully) be considered for deletion. TK-925 17:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Apparently not 74.56.165.54 23:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Just one thing to say: Tropical Storm Lee (2005). -RunningOnBrains 15:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Newsworthy, article-worthy, whatever. You know what I meant. My bad on word choice there. I just think it's amazing that all you people who think it wasn't big enough to have a Wikipedia article have to realize that the world doesn't revolve around you and your cities. It was different in other places. It's all about perspective, as well. If 5 inches of snow fell in Florida, for example, that would definitely be article-worthy. But under some of the logic presented here, it wouldn't be, because it's not a huge storm that dumped several feet, "and because we get bigger storms here all the time." I'm not saying you people would say that, but that's the logic being presented here. I'm also under the belief (of which I'm aware many fellow Wikipedia editors don't agree with) that just about anything can be an article if enough information is presented for it (there's still plenty of things that wouldn't be, though). bob rulz 20:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

No, because those are northern cities where they usually get at least some snow anyways. Snowstorms, not even blizzards, should be normal or at least expected. Its not like 5 inches of snow falling in florida. It's more like 5 inches of rain falling in Florida. NO ONE REALLY CARES EXCEPT THE PEOPLE LIVING THERE. 74.56.165.54 00:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia has several terabytes of disk space, and can add more if necessary. Disk space is cheap. As long as the content is good, and the article follows all the appropriate content policies, there's no reason to panic. Even if nobody actually cared about the storm, the fact that we can write an article about it speaks for something. Titoxd(?!?) 06:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major Cities?

In the Storm Track section of the article, there is a long list of "Major" cities that have been affected. Someone recently attempted to add Scranton, Pennsylvania as a major city, which I reverted as it is a rather small town of 75,000 people. But this is where I am confused: how do we define major city for the purposes of this article? Should it be any city over 100,000 people, State/Provincial capitals, or should other factors determine its inclusion as a major city? Héous 16:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If over 100,000 is used, St. Catharines, Ontario should be added to the list as we ended up with around two feet of snow and quite clearly have more than 100,000 people, though I believe the entire Niagara Region should be added instead, and am going to do that right now. If regional centres are used, half of that list should be removed. In addition, what qualifies as 'impact' ? London, ON was recently listed as being impacted by the storm, but Environment Canada measurements peg them as barely getting more than 5cm of snow. Snickerdo 18:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

100,000 would be the lower bottom I think, the small I've put before a large batch was added was Dayton (150,000 and they were on the edge of the 6 inches zone).--JForget 20:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The page was vandalized, and when i tried to edit it to fix it up, somthin happened to my connection and i screwed it up... there's no image on the first page...

100,000 is fine... Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania, for example only have five cities above 100,000. Connecticut and New Jersey have four, Rhode Island and New Hampshire have one each. Maine and Vermont have none. That's 25 in the Northeast, an area of 179,050 sq mi. ...And even that relatively high number is only due to the high population concentration. -newkai t-c 02:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] new totals

I looked up precipitaton totals for two major cities, Toronto and Montreal, and the source currently says, as of now, 8.3 cm for toronto and 13.4 cm for montreal. It actually says mm, but I believe it is cm. Should it be added (the source is [1], although data must be inserted manually, by going to the site, entering the city, and submitting historical data)? AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 18:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The smallest totals, if you want to add them: Channel 7 Meteorologist Brian van de Graaff says Frederick County, Md., received 3 inches and Winchester, Va., 2.2 inches. Snow totals -- immunity 22:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
If you really want to go nuts, quote every amount reported into CoCoRAHS. It will be much more complete than any local weather guy. Thegreatdr 02:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey, those three inches were enough to shut down school for three and a half days. Woo-hoo! O8643 11:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
But that's more because of the ice part, not the snow. I believe the criteria we were going with was major cities and/or close to 6 inches or higher. Obviously some of the biggest totals were not in large cities and were still included, and the totals from large cities, though not big, were still included. It's all relative anyway. WindRunner 21:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I was just wondering if it would be alright to add Syracuse to the snow totals list. It is a major city in upstate NY and I feel their snow total is worth noting. If you guys and gals don't agree, no big deal. Darry2385 02:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Like AstroHurricane001 said, Toronto and Montreal got alot of snow, as well as Calgary Alberta, maybe something refering to Canada is needed as we are not just blip on the map, here we had at least 7 or more inches. However this was about a week before Valentines and starting Valentines the 'thaw' turned on. The Ravager 17:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Loads of images

There were a lot of images on this article, some were removed and I have a few. I'm thinkin a galelry would be a ppropriate at the bottom. Any disagreements? KeepOnTruckin 18:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I took some pictures myself :) GracenotesT § 18:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good here. If you need some pictures of the ice, I might have a few worth using. WindRunner 20:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
If we can, let's also try to make sure there's geographical balance and variety of pictures in the article. Some pictures of the storm's impact in the Midwest and Canada would be appreciated. Additionally, if we can, let's not have all the pictures be of residential neighborhoods...can we get a few road shots, commerical areas, airports, open spaces? Snow drifts would be good too. --Abog 20:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there any users in the Sherbrooke/Quebec City or Hamilton/Niagara areas that got rocked big time had took any pictures of the storm? That would be good to add a picture from Canada for the event--JForget 20:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a couple images showing snow coverage in Ithaca, NY. If there is a gallery created, I'll add them there. Darry2385 22:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ive created the gallery here first so we can choose the best images. KeepOnTruckin 23:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added the rest that I can find. Granted, some of these are of higher quality than others. GracenotesT § 01:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added a picture that I took. I think it shows the snowfall better than the current pic in the infobox. But then, I'm biased. Also, why have one on the main page that is so cloudy and dark? Dismas|(talk) 01:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I added the one I mentioned above. Use it if you want. Darry2385 02:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I've made a gallery at the bottom of the page. Feel free to move images up from the gallery, or down into it, as you see fit. GracenotesT § 04:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Purpose of large cat picture at beginning?

I don't get what the (very large) image of the cat peaking through the ceiling has to do with the article, nor why it's at the very beginning of the page (before the tags). It should be justified (and probably shrunk down) or it should be removed/repositioned. GordonJTaylor 21:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've warned User:Lego Man 25 for that vandalism.--JForget 21:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing one of the tags

There is no need for both the recentism and current event tags; I'm removing the recentism one. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 22:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

They mean two different things, albeit related. ~ UBeR 22:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
They do, although personally I think that trimming should be a later objective, not one to worry about now. GracenotesT § 22:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the recentism link is inappropriate as long as it links to an essay. To quote "This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline, it simply reflects some opinions of its authors." As such, it's inappropriate that it's being linked to from the mainspace. As such, I'm removing it. Themindset 01:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] *sigh* Discuss page move

This page has seen a host of moves, so I would like to propose a final location, since fixing double redirects is no fun if you've already done it two times. I personally like 2007 mid-February Eastern North America winter storm, but as a compromise with the current version (move summary: "Shorter, more practical", which really doesn't help with latent disambiguation), I would suggest... hm, I really can't think of any other title to indicate when it happened (mid-February is better than February, since how do we know another storm won't happen?), it happened in 2007, which needs to stay in the title, it was a "winter storm" (not classified as a blizzard), it happened in the Eastern half of America. Maybe someone wants to switch word order? Note that there is a guideline about this, but it's very much out-of-date, not consistent with most articles out there about similar events. Any suggestions? GracenotesT § 22:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Just leave it here for now. If there is another storm, we can deal with it then. But we cant make decisions using a crystal ball. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I say leave it for now, too. And if there's not another notable storm, then personally, I'd like it moved back to Valentine's day something. It seems appropriate and the name really caught on with the media (exhibit A, B, C, D, F). As well, "mid-February storm" got 1 hit on Google news, while "Valentine's Day storm" got 154. It's a better name, IMO and the the media's opinion. └Jared┘┌talk┐  23:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
In general, though, articles starting with "Month Year" are used for a summary of events in that time period, not for specific events. It is becoming convention for such one-time events to begin with the year number, despite the... odd, odd reasoning at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (numbers and dates). But yes, leave the article where it is for now; after all, there are no angry page-moving mastadons :)
JP06035, I seem to sense that the media uses "Valentine's Day" as more of a description, than a name; furthermore, weather services should probably have more to weigh in about naming events than "the media". The generic "2007 mid-February" reflects that; see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events). "Valentine's Day" isn't common, since many articles mention the storm without mentioning the holiday. In addition, unless the storm is distinctly relevant to the fact that it occured on Valentine's Day, it should go for the generic title. GracenotesT § 23:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I personally liek 2007 valentines day storm or somthing similar;Thats how I labled my images. KeepOnTruckin 14:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) Why not name it February 2007 North American Blizzard? It was a blizzard. This is verifyable, and blizzard conditions occurred over a large area. Why use two cumbersome words when one will do? Besides, saying its February in North America and that it's a Winter storm are redundant.-RunningOnBrains 15:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Oopsie. No blizzard? Really? still, the redundancy can be taken out by naming it February 2007 North American storm. -RunningOnBrains 15:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Winter storm is a technical term, though, just like blizzard. GracenotesT § 19:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] School closing lists

Looks this is getting way too long and duration or timing of closures is not really necessary. We can keep the list, but I suggest to trim down that section or put a table or something. --JForget 00:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Definitely has to go. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. – Chacor 01:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
This embedded list is indiscriminate, and could serve better as prose. Some schools could be removed; include schools on the more notable end. GracenotesT § 01:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Why not just mention somewhere in the impact that X number of universities were closed? Or, do it state by state. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
It might be better to remove them all - the average reader won't be interested in each individual school that closed. I agree with Hurricanehink, though, that a sentence or two could be added stating that schools were closed, but we don't need a list. --Coredesat 01:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I think any university that has not closed in 10-15 years should be kepted like the University of Illinois, Purdue, University of Toledo, and Kutztown University are the ones that should be reviewed that show the true impact of the storm. The Blizzard of 1996 showed the impacted where New York's Public Schools shut down for the first time in 18 years.Spongefan 01:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC
I removed some smaller schools from the list (with a slight bias towards sourced statements), and integrated the list into prose, including a definite majority of the "closed for the first time in XX years" stuff. Check out this diff for what I did. GracenotesT § 05:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

In the article it says that Cornell didn't close till 12:30pm depsite the fact that most of the snow had been cleared. I'm removing this statement because it is false. I live in Ithaca, NY, and it was snowing all day Wednesday and didn't stop until 7pm EST or so. I was out driving Wed. afternoon and the roads downtown were anything but cleared. Darry2385 04:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

Somebody put a DVD image on the infobox! The page has been vandalized! - Patricknoddy 12:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian Stats Please

Being these series of storms also affected both Ontario & Quebec, I believe we should be placing more Canadian statistical facts. This wasnt just an American storm. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aleeproject (talk • contribs) 18:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Don't bother, we haven't had any more snow then usual. Lots of strong wind, but otherwise a typical Canadian winter. 74.56.165.54 23:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Um, I wouldn't call 70cm of snow in Hamilton in a 48 hour period a 'typical Canadian snowstorm.' The region was shut down from Oakville to Niagara Falls. Oh, and someone want to tell me why the metric equivilents were removed from the infobox at the top of the article? Snickerdo 13:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
What are you talking about? It may not be normal, but it certainly isn't significant. 72.1.206.17 15:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image in Precipitation Section

OK, there's an edit war of sorts going on over which of the following two images to put in the article (not gallery) under precipitation. I think we need some more input to reach a consensus here:

Approximately 5 inches (12.5 cm) of snow fell near Beekman, New York, while other areas were affected more significantly.
Approximately 5 inches (12.5 cm) of snow fell near Beekman, New York, while other areas were affected more significantly.
An ice-covered mailbox near Fredericksburg, Virginia
An ice-covered mailbox near Fredericksburg, Virginia

I contend that both images relate directly to precipitation. One is snow, and one is ice, but both are precipitation. The left image, however, is just a close-up of some snow. It's not visually interesting, and anyone who has ever seen snow and knows what 5 inches is can imagine such an image without the need of an actual photograph. The second image, however, illustrates how surfaces got coated with ice along the southern track of the storm. It is the only image that was displayed in the article (not the gallery) that demonstrated this. All the other images are of snow, which is fine, because that's what the storm produced the most of. However, I believe it is helpful to have a 200px-sized picture of ice coatings in the article itself next to the paragraph about it. I realize that I probably have some bias here, since I took the photo of the ice-covered mailbox, which is why I'm putting it to the rest of you in the Wikipedia community. Please use this section of the talk page to discuss which photograph you think is a better one for that part of the article and why. Thanks! MamaGeek (talk/contrib) 18:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes! Let the WP:OWN battles begin! :p I took the snow picture to be more analytical than exciting; unlike the other image, it's less detailed, and thus less interesting. However, it's the only image in the article whose focus is the amount of precipitation in inches. I intended it to be as such, although I realize that this sort of image is, by default, boring. I would prefer to keep it in the article, because it's not like many of the other pictures, and because I have a natural bias towards it. I don't mind if it goes to the gallery, however. The other picture is fine, although the link to precipitation isn't obvious from the caption. If that could be changed, then great; I have no problems with it. GracenotesT § 19:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I think we need a second opinion. Would anyone else like to weigh in on this? MamaGeek (talk/contrib) 20:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I prefer the mailbox because the other one simply isn't visually appealing. It's also hard to get five inches from it since there's nothing in the foreground that's good to use as a scale. I do want to say that it might be a good idea to move Image:Blizzard 2007 West Lafayette.png from the gallery to the article (maybe replace an image that's already in the article). Of all the pictures, this one is the most visually striking and, unlike many of the others, isn't a dark blue color. ShadowHalo 20:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I like your point about scale. I will take User:Gracenotes's suggestion and modify the caption of the mailbox image to talk more about precipitation and put it back in the article, and move the inches photo to the gallery. Image:Blizzard 2007 West Lafayette.png is much more visually interesting than some of the other photos in the article. I second the move. MamaGeek (talk/contrib) 20:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Sounds fine with me. Move my exciting photo down into the gallery! GracenotesT § 21:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This picture also shows the ice accumulatiuon. KeepOnTruckin 22:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

OH WOW ICICLES!! THAT MUST BE TERRIBLE!! 74.56.165.54 00:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, icicles from an ice storm. bob rulz 03:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
...Your observations are flawless, Cpt. Obvious. 72.1.206.17 16:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Has the storm abated?

This article is misleading as the infobox suggests under the dissipation heading that the storm is ongoing, yet the main paragraph that it states that it was a storm? Which tense is correct?

[edit] Heavy vandalism

Hi. Could someone reprotect this article, because it is currently experiencing vandalism from anons, or is there a reason ths shouldn't be reprotected even with so much vandalism? Thanks. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 22:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think articles being featured on the main page are only semi-protected in extenuating circumstances. Though that might just be the featured article of the day. ShadowHalo 22:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, it was protected earlier, and wtih six vandalism in the last 75 minutes, I think it would probably be a good idea. WindRunner 22:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
ShadowHalo, that rule is primarily for Today's Featured Article, but it is preferable not to semi-protect articles on the Main Page unless things get real bad. Given that this article has probably received a great amount of traffic due to its Main Page appearance, the amount of vandalism that has been shown up on this article is actually quite small. -- tariqabjotu 22:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] So if this isn't going...

Then the article should reflect how much this is effecting rural communities in the states. The three or four feet five inches of snow in New York and other areas is making the US the laughing stock of Canada. Yet again. However, the rural communities are seeing the real damage with all of the power outages and etc. And to the New Yorkers and other major cities affected: Come up north of the border. We have more snow, far colder weather, far more wind. And this is normal. A little ice on your mailbox or eavestrough is just ridiculous to talk about. That picture of the snow in New York is laughable. C'mon, wikipedia, lets at least show the world where the REAL damage is being done. 74.56.165.54 23:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Rather than duking it out to see what areas of the world receive the most snow, what's most helpful right now would be adding that information from news sites. Most of the coverage I've seen has focused on major cities, so there's less verifiable information about rural areas. If you find some, feel free to post a link, or better yet, add it to the article with the link as a reference. ShadowHalo 00:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Isn't there enough information on here already?

I say this with all due respect to those who have spent their suddenly plentiful time indoors (to those stuck in this weather, I am truly sympathetic) creating this article but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. How is knowing that, for instance, in some village a carport was damaged by the storm? I am just saying, being from Chicago, I've been in blizzards worse than this before, but this much information on one of them, albeit currently an "important item of news", is not required. Is it? I am just opening it up for discussion. Please feel free to disagree. --IRelayer 00:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I think anyone living outside of New York agrees with you. This is a ridiculous article. 74.56.165.54 00:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
3 feet is a lot of snow.
btw, Burlington, Vermont saw a record amount of snow for a 24-hour period. Laugh at that, loser. bob rulz 03:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
If you only you could hear the peeling laughter echoing in the halls. 72.1.206.17 15:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aftermath deaths and stop questionning the notability here

[2] This site has a list of U.S. cities which has links to T.V stations via webcam or weather links. This would be more useful to track down the number of deaths during especially from the aftermath as there have local reports of fatalities due to snow removal, heart attacks, etc. That will also stop people from questionning the notability of this article (i.e some non-notable tropical systems had articles) and this article is more notable then all tropical systems of this year.--JForget 01:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If you are referring to me, I was not questioning notability but the sheer amount of information of questionable value and/or relevance that is currently included.--IRelayer 07:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First section under "impact"

I quote, "BIG assholes screw everyone in Northeast".

What at all does this have to do with the storm? 68.98.173.128 01:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


Nevermind, it's been changed. 68.98.173.128 01:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism. bob rulz 03:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Gallery

Do we really need this many pictures in this article? Personally, I think this gallery should be toned down. What do you guys think? --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 14:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I love images, and I prefer as many images as possible in any article. A picture is worth a thousand words, and I prefer to see pictures describing articles. How else are we supposed to see the true nature of these storms? KeepOnTruckin 19:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with ASDFGHJKL that the amount of pictures is excessive, particularly considering that they're bad pictures in general... A few icicles and 5 inches of snow? Please. The "Gallery" section has become more of a repository for amateur photographers glorifying themselves. The pictures just make the article seem like a stupid over-reaction. Unless a picture shows a significant impact from the weather system, I agree that it should be removed. "Quizno's closed"? That's a joke of a picture, and it hardly deserves archiving in wikipedia. And don't give me any "But the pictures do show an impact in central Illinois", because I'm in central Illinois, and I know what the storm looked like.-- Byakuren 05:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your compliments regarding my "Quizno's closed" photo. I was trying to illustrate the impact (as you ask for in your comment) of the weather system on businesses, something that hadn't been depicted yet. -newkai t-c 06:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, at least one of us can keep a civil tone here (and I'm talking about you, btw). So I apologize if you found the remark rude... it was probably not the politest way to say what I meant. But, surely, you can appreciate that of all the closings and shutdowns and interruptions to general business and everyday life, a Quizno's closing is not significant by any standards. Therefore, the picture does not contribute anything of real value to the article. It is a mere curiosity, and it has no place here. Same goes with some of the other pictures that capture what can only be described as typical North American winter conditions. Wikipedia us not a repository of ordinary winter pictures. Do you disagree? -- Byakuren 22:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Of course Wikipedia is not a repository of ordinary winter pictures... That's what Commons is for! And what this article should have is an interwiki link to a page on commons with all the pictures. The Quizno's picture is probably not the best way to depict the disruption caused by the storm... A photo of a canceled flight monitor or one of those electronic highway signs over an interstate stating closure ahead would probably be better, but it was the best I could do three days after the storm! -newkai t-c 02:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More school section issues

OK, I haven't had any problems with the school section until now. Maybe this is a local POV thing, but I'm not sure, so I'm asking here first. The line "Numerous secondary school closings occured in the Mid-Atlantic as a result of the storm. Fairfax County Public Schools,located in Northern Virginia, shut down for three days in a row following the storm. Though snow totals in that area had trouble surpassing one inch, over two inches of sleet accompanied the light snow accumulations." seems pretty out of touch with the rest of the article, and it's not that notable. IF anything was put in from the DC area public schools, how about the 10 counties to the west of Fairfax that were closed for four days and received more snow and ice than they did (2" snow, 3/4" freezing rain has been more destructive than 2" of sleet). WindRunner 15:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the section about the "ever-so-infamous" school district is definatley not verifiable, but should it even be reworded? I honestly see little use for any public school closure information unless snow days are continued until Monday. THAT would be notable. WindRunner 15:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I left a <!-- comment --> in that section, which I shall quote here:
many of the schools here are listed because they are notable and/or have not received a snow day in a long, long time; the latter reinforces the notability of this storm
Perhaps this inexact quote from Walden may prove to be of some solace: "Renew thy [school section] completely each day; do it again, and again, and forever again." Don't be afraid to cut schools from the section, but make sure this feature of the storm (schools closing) is not understated. If information on the condition of schools that received a lot of snow is available and verifiable, that might be useful also. Google News is quite helpful in this regard. GracenotesT § 18:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fixing images

Well, I've been systematically going through the images in this article and editing them to fix the horrible lighting in most of them. Two of the worst, however, are locked. Does anyone know when they'll be unlocked, so I can fix 'em up? MamaGeek (talk/contrib) 21:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend uploading the edited images under a similar filename, just with "Edit" or "1" or something appended to the end. Then the new version can replace the old, and the new one can be protected. ShadowHalo 21:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip! I'll definitely keep that in mind from now on. MamaGeek (talk/contrib) 04:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anyone hear about the parking garge collapse in NY due to snow?

I think this deserves a place in the article: Town blames plow company for Galleria parking garage collapse Parking garge in Poughkeepsie collapsed due to snow from this storm.

Then another one in Sloatsburg: Sloatsburg rest area garage restricted after collapse Same deal, it looks like- KeepOnTruckin 19:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

May I suggest changing the location of the second New Orleans tornado from "East New Orleans" to "Northern New Orleans." Technically, there is a section of New Orleans called East New Orleans/New Orleans East on the eastern side of the Inner Harbor Navigational Canal, but Gentilly (more specifically, Pontchartrain Park neighborhood) is not part of that area of town, but on the opposite side of the canal very close to Lake Pontchartrain. - --Bdj95 06:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Ongoing Weather"

Do we really still need the {{ongoing weather}} template at the top of the article? I'm pretty sure this storm is over! ...Or do we have to wait until all the snow melts? -newkai t-c 18:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Then we may be waiting a long, long time. Especially in Oswego, Redfield, Pulaski, etc. I think its time it disappeared. Darry2385 18:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Florida cold snap

What about the cold snap in Florida? Freeze warnings went all the way down to the Everglades for two nights this past weekend, and I think at least the first cold snap was related to this weather event. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 20:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality hearing cancelled do to ice storm

this should be one of the headliners

HOUSE HEARING ON 'WARMING OF THE PLANET' CANCELED AFTER ICE STORM HEARING NOTICE Tue Feb 13 2007 19:31:25 ET

The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality hearing scheduled for Wednesday, February 14, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building has been postponed due to inclement weather. The hearing is entitled “Climate Change: Are Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Human Activities Contributing to a Warming of the Planet?”

The hearing will be rescheduled to a date and time to be announced later.

DC WEATHER REPORT:

Wednesday: Freezing rain in the morning. Total ice accumulation between one half to three quarters of an inch. Brisk with highs in the mid 30s. North winds 10 to 15 mph...increasing to northwest 20 to 25 mph in the afternoon. Chance of precipitation near 100 percent.

Wednesday Night: Partly cloudy. Lows around 18. Northwest winds around 20 mph.


source: http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.165.39 (talk • contribs)

Thousands of meetings were cancelled. While the above does sound humorous, it's just a meeting nevertheless! -newkai t-c 06:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quebec/Montreal not affected

The actual weather for Montreal region was normal. A 1-2 feets of snow can be seing like difficult in other region of the planet but not in this part of North America.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.146.89 (talk • contribs)

Maybe for Montreal it was not unusual, but for areas such as Hamilton and Sherbrooke getting over 2 feet of snow is not really normal I think, especially considering the lack of snow they were experiencing before this storm. No the Canadian reports must be kept definitely as it was not just a U.S storm--JForget 16:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

maybe it should mention that it was not unusual for Canadian regions, because Canadians seem to want us out of the article pretty much. Specusci 13:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Precipitation by region: Multiple spots in one region

What are we going to do about this table? It's named "Precipitation by region" but, for example, we have both Cleveland, Ohio and it's suburb Cleveland Heights. We can't list every recording location throughout the Northeast and Midwest that picked up decent snowfall! We could either:

  • List only the main official measuring location for each metropolitan area (often the airport)
  • List only the 10-20 top official snowfall amounts overall

Any other suggestions? -newkai t-c 02:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] In context

I can understand all the hub bub concerning this storm,especialy in places where these storms are rare. When the south coast of British Columbia was hit with snow storms back in November,one would have thought it was one of the 7 signs of the apocolypse.What happened here(B.C),happens all the time in Eastern Canada AND Midwest and eastern U.S, so for B.C, it was definatly news worthy,however there isn't an article on it on Wiki...Go figure —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.19.20 (talk • contribs)

Some fat americans couldn't walk to the McDonalds with ease. Snow makes it hard to walk, y'know. Specusci 13:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Precipitation Map

There is now a (in my mind) better version of the precipitation map from KBOX (find it here). The differences is that this one plots the isopleths and uses white text which is harder to read. I'd prefer the version with the lines on it, but I don't know if it was worth sacrificing readability to get the lines. Thoughts? WindRunner 13:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA nom

A user decided to fail the article, only ging an edit summary on the GA page that the "article lacks importance." This is insufficient grounds for failing an article. I have reinstated the nomination for it to reviewed properly. The JPStalk to me 14:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, perhaps it may be wise to have a look at the lead -- split it down into smaller paragraphs? Also, it would be very good to see some refs in the lead: at the moment the first ref is halfway into the first section... The JPStalk to me 14:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a GA reviewer, but simply for the sake of peer review, I suggest you clean up the Schools section. Otherwise, it looks like a well written article with several sources. --Yono 02:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

i think a lot of writings needs to cleaned up. Even though the article seems long, but it doesn't seem to contain much info other than 1. lots of snow 2. school closed 3. traffic affected. Most of these information can be summarized in only one paragraph. With only these types of informations it reads more like a news article than an encyclopedia article. (The tables displayed are nice. )
following some comments from the top of the discussion, I don't think an event deserves an wikipedia article just because X number of people died, or because it is unusual at the location where it happened. Such news, as my last paragraph suggested, should only be in an news article.
In my opinion, if this article is to stay, it should have more information, the impact on the culture, the long term economic damage, international responses. Otherwise, if there isn't even a formal name for this particular storm, i cannot see any significant importance for it to be encyclopedic.
Is this storm even considered a "disaster?"?
Z3u2 00:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I have a question myself, the section about travel problems, isn't that where the JetBlue controversy thing happened? It seems to of not been mentioned, and even a sentence would do, it just seems like a strangely missing omission. Homestarmy 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

Some references are formatted incorrectly, ensure proper use of WP:CITET or something similar. Make sure the gallery of images doesn't get too clutered with images that don't immediately convey the effects of the storm. Overall, a good article. PhoenixTwo 18:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


What's with the picture " lamp post in the snow"? What does it try to convey, the storm knocked down the lamp post? It must be a gag picture...the mail box one is priceless as well.

Seriously, it's just a little bit of ice...it's hardly even worthy enough to mention in the article. Also, there are more spectacular pictures then that rather mild "OH LOOK 5 INCHES OF SNOW IN NEW YORK!!111!one!11one!1!1!!" picture. Looking back at the photos, some of them are ridiculous. For example, someone thought it noteworthy to show a picture of refrozen snow melt...OH NOES!!111!!! DER WUZ WATER IN DA COLD AND IT FROZE!!!!Specusci 13:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I happened to go outside on that day and do 2 hours of work, and I thought "You know, maybe I can help Wikipedia somehow, perhaps by taking a picture to add to the article." So I dug up some snow, and tried to take an encyclopedic, scientific (albeit, retrospectively boring) picture. Whatever I can do to help. So, I'm not exactly too enthused by your comments. If it doesn't help, remove it from the article. I don't know else to say about your suggestion to improve the article...constructive criticism...actionable complaint...compliment...whatever. And as for some of the other pictures, it's not that what they capture is unique, but some are quite visually appealing, no? GracenotesT § 04:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps Review: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I've lived through a few major blizzards in North Dakota, and this article gave me some chills while I'm in my 70°F-weather in San Diego! I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Here are a few things the article could improve on:

  1. "Lackawanna County and Luzerne County in northeastern Pennsylvania received so much snow that every highway was closed." This could use an inline citation.
  2. "In addition to traffic accidents, fatalities were reported due to tornadoes, heart attacks while shoveling, roof collapses due to heavy snow, falling tree branches and carbon monoxide poisoning.[22][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][12]" I like well-sourced statements, but this may go beyond what is necessary. Condense this down into two or three sources tops.
  3. The gallery has some great images, but since there are so many throughout the aticle it would be best to condense this down to 8-10 images. The link for the the rest of the images available at Wikimedia Commons is provided at the bottom of the article. If readers are interested, they can look there for more information. I definitely don't agree with the comments in the above section, because it's great that there were so many available images for the article. I wish other articles had this many images, because it's great for getting a better perspective of the events that occurred.

Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would also be beneficial to update the accessdates for the website inline citations and repair any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)