Talk:Great Lakes Blizzard of 1977

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Non-tropical storms, a project containing articles related to worldwide Non-tropical storm events. If you would like to participate and help, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance within WikiProject Non-tropical storms.

Contents 1 Revert? 2 Ugh 3 ARGH 4 References 5 Correct units of measure

[edit] 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?

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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.