Talk:1967 Chicago blizzard

Michigan
It didn't just hit Illinois and Indiana. Lansing got 24 inches, and Kalamazoo got 30. 73.186.162.89 (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I am sure that is true, but that would be another article, right? --Prairieplant (talk) 11:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Again I say, that is another article, the Michigan blizzard. I have deleted most of the references to Michigan that you added. Please start another article with your sources for Michigan. This article has one topic, the Chicago blizzard and its record-breaking snow fall.  --Prairieplant (talk) 06:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I won't redo my work here or on any separate article : this is the same storm and it is stupid to have an article only about the effect on Chicago. That will teach me to try to better an article with well referenced additions that put the storm in context as nothing is said in your limited article about the type of meteorological situation involved in this storm. As described, it can be thought as a localized lake-effect snow not a part of a larger storm. This article is back to be undefined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by user Pierre cb (talk) time, 08:58, 9 July 2020(UTC)


 * There is no need to be bitter. The topic is the record storm in Chicago, when weather forecasting was nowhere near as good as it is now. The topic is not the weather system over a larger part of the US and Canada. The narrow focus makes it a top priority article about Chicago, . Chicago as a city is not stopped totally very often. I appreciate your acceptance of the changes I made. --Prairieplant (talk) 04:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Chance of more photos?
Are there more photos to enrich this article? Say, the one used by the National Weather Service in its article, with people, snow and stopped automobiles, showing the depth of the snow. I cleaned up the references and added section titles that I hope mark the flow of the event and leave room for more substance to this article. There are no citations of articles from the days the snow fell -- is that because the articles are archived at newspapers.com or some other such web site? It would be good to round out the article with some stories of individuals, and some of the happy parts of it, like using a sled to walk to the grocery store and back home with bread and milk, until the streets were cleared. Also some notes on how the 10 inch snow fall the following Wednesday probably did not close any schools, or did it? --Prairieplant (talk) 11:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 1967 Chicago blizzard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170130164450/https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20160125/downtown/chicago-blizzard-of-1967-when-record-23-inches-of-snow-pounded-city to https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20160125/downtown/chicago-blizzard-of-1967-when-record-23-inches-of-snow-pounded-city
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170202072059/https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20160301/woodlawn/what-happens-all-snow-after-big-storm-map to https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20160301/woodlawn/what-happens-all-snow-after-big-storm-map

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I checked the archives rescue for the two DNA Info references. The videos in the first article do not show, and the map in the 2nd article does not show the outline of the city, just the placement of the lots for storing plowed snow. Maybe the owner who stopped DNA info yesterday will put up true archives, who knows? Fast action by the bot, here!  --Prairieplant (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The owner of the DNA Info archive restored it to function a day after taking it down, so the "original" links work now, including access to the videos in the original articles. Best to leave things this way, with archived ref, when "original" is now available?  --Prairieplant (talk) 13:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)