This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
I am currently working my way through Wikipedia:Good_articles/Geography_and_places#Places, to check on the condition of the listed articles. I have noticed a tendency in some articles to rich use of media, and in particular the use of Template:Weather box. My initial instinct is that the box is rather noisy and distracting, and does not follow guidance at WP:NOTSTAT, WP:Embed and MOS:TABLE, in that if the important/essential information/statistics is already summarised in prose then such a table is either not needed, or if considered useful due to the significance of the climate to the topic, then it should be collapsed. There is also the consideration of due weight and focus - where an article is on a location which is not particularly notable for its climate, and where the information is already given in prose that the weather is typical for the region or country, then displaying a large and colourful table with a lot of detailed weather data for a village seems a little excessive.
However, I have noted that the weather box appears in a wide range of articles, and often has been in place for some time, so its use is well established, so my concerns may be misplaced, and that the box has wide approval and consensus. However, as I couldn't find any previous discussion in the archives, I felt it was worth bringing up for discussion to see what the general consensus is - and if it might be useful to draw up guidelines for use of the box in settlement articles. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Kugaaruk Airport | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Climate chart ( explanation) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Climate data for Kugaaruk Airport (blue colour) | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Month | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Year |
Record high humidex | −6.7 | −9.9 | −3.5 | 1.3 | 5.4 | 25.3 | 31.2 | 25.7 | 18.4 | 6.0 | −0.7 | −1.5 | 31.2 |
Record high °C (°F) | −7.0 (19.4) |
−10.0 (14.0) |
−3.5 (25.7) |
1.8 (35.2) |
7.5 (45.5) |
26.0 (78.8) |
27.5 (81.5) |
29.0 (84.2) |
18.5 (65.3) |
8.0 (46.4) |
0.0 (32.0) |
−2.5 (27.5) |
29.0 (84.2) |
Mean daily maximum °C (°F) | −29.9 (−21.8) |
−29.6 (−21.3) |
−24.0 (−11.2) |
−14.3 (6.3) |
−4.0 (24.8) |
6.1 (43.0) |
13.9 (57.0) |
10.1 (50.2) |
2.7 (36.9) |
−6.0 (21.2) |
−17.4 (0.7) |
−24.6 (−12.3) |
−9.7 (14.5) |
Daily mean °C (°F) | −33.5 (−28.3) |
−33.5 (−28.3) |
−28.5 (−19.3) |
−19.4 (−2.9) |
−7.9 (17.8) |
2.9 (37.2) |
9.3 (48.7) |
6.5 (43.7) |
0.4 (32.7) |
−9.1 (15.6) |
−21.1 (−6.0) |
−28.3 (−18.9) |
−13.5 (7.7) |
Mean daily minimum °C (°F) | −37.1 (−34.8) |
−37.3 (−35.1) |
−33.0 (−27.4) |
−24.5 (−12.1) |
−11.7 (10.9) |
−0.4 (31.3) |
4.6 (40.3) |
2.9 (37.2) |
−2.0 (28.4) |
−12.1 (10.2) |
−24.9 (−12.8) |
−32.0 (−25.6) |
−17.3 (0.9) |
Record low °C (°F) | −51.5 (−60.7) |
−49.5 (−57.1) |
−51.0 (−59.8) |
−44.5 (−48.1) |
−32.0 (−25.6) |
−15.2 (4.6) |
−1.5 (29.3) |
−5.0 (23.0) |
−14.0 (6.8) |
−31.0 (−23.8) |
−40.5 (−40.9) |
−48.5 (−55.3) |
−51.5 (−60.7) |
Record low wind chill | −64.7 | −68.2 | −61.8 | −51.4 | −35.1 | −22.7 | 0.0 | −8.9 | −19.8 | −44.3 | −51.7 | −60.2 | −68.2 |
Average precipitation mm (inches) | 9.0 (0.35) |
8.1 (0.32) |
14.1 (0.56) |
20.0 (0.79) |
18.6 (0.73) |
22.1 (0.87) |
36.5 (1.44) |
44.8 (1.76) |
28.7 (1.13) |
28.4 (1.12) |
17.7 (0.70) |
13.5 (0.53) |
261.3 (10.29) |
Average rainfall mm (inches) | 0.0 (0.0) |
0.0 (0.0) |
0.0 (0.0) |
0.0 (0.0) |
1.1 (0.04) |
18.1 (0.71) |
36.5 (1.44) |
43.1 (1.70) |
15.2 (0.60) |
2.6 (0.10) |
0.0 (0.0) |
0.0 (0.0) |
116.6 (4.59) |
Average snowfall cm (inches) | 9.0 (3.5) |
8.1 (3.2) |
14.1 (5.6) |
20.1 (7.9) |
17.7 (7.0) |
4.1 (1.6) |
0.0 (0.0) |
1.6 (0.6) |
13.6 (5.4) |
26.0 (10.2) |
18.4 (7.2) |
13.5 (5.3) |
146.2 (57.6) |
Average precipitation days (≥ 0.2 mm) | 6.6 | 5.0 | 6.9 | 6.7 | 8.1 | 7.2 | 9.6 | 13.1 | 12.5 | 12.8 | 9.2 | 7.2 | 104.8 |
Average rainy days (≥ 0.2 mm) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.6 | 5.9 | 9.6 | 12.8 | 6.5 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 36.0 |
Average snowy days (≥ 0.2 cm) | 6.6 | 5.0 | 6.9 | 6.7 | 7.8 | 1.8 | 0.1 | 0.7 | 7.0 | 12.6 | 9.4 | 7.3 | 71.8 |
Average relative humidity (%) | 72.7 | 78.1 | 73.2 | 80.8 | 82.9 | 77.3 | 66.4 | 72.0 | 81.2 | 85.0 | 79.0 | 78.4 | 77.2 |
Source:
Environment Canada Canadian Climate Normals 1981–2010Cite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the
help page).
|
Climate data for Kugaaruk Airport (pastel & green) | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Month | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Year |
Record high humidex | −6.7 | −9.9 | −3.5 | 1.3 | 5.4 | 25.3 | 31.2 | 25.7 | 18.4 | 6.0 | −0.7 | −1.5 | 31.2 |
Record high °C (°F) | −7.0 (19.4) |
−10.0 (14.0) |
−3.5 (25.7) |
1.8 (35.2) |
7.5 (45.5) |
26.0 (78.8) |
27.5 (81.5) |
29.0 (84.2) |
18.5 (65.3) |
8.0 (46.4) |
0.0 (32.0) |
−2.5 (27.5) |
29.0 (84.2) |
Mean daily maximum °C (°F) | −29.9 (−21.8) |
−29.6 (−21.3) |
−24.0 (−11.2) |
−14.3 (6.3) |
−4.0 (24.8) |
6.1 (43.0) |
13.9 (57.0) |
10.1 (50.2) |
2.7 (36.9) |
−6.0 (21.2) |
−17.4 (0.7) |
−24.6 (−12.3) |
−9.7 (14.5) |
Daily mean °C (°F) | −33.5 (−28.3) |
−33.5 (−28.3) |
−28.5 (−19.3) |
−19.4 (−2.9) |
−7.9 (17.8) |
2.9 (37.2) |
9.3 (48.7) |
6.5 (43.7) |
0.4 (32.7) |
−9.1 (15.6) |
−21.1 (−6.0) |
−28.3 (−18.9) |
−13.5 (7.7) |
Mean daily minimum °C (°F) | −37.1 (−34.8) |
−37.3 (−35.1) |
−33.0 (−27.4) |
−24.5 (−12.1) |
−11.7 (10.9) |
−0.4 (31.3) |
4.6 (40.3) |
2.9 (37.2) |
−2.0 (28.4) |
−12.1 (10.2) |
−24.9 (−12.8) |
−32.0 (−25.6) |
−17.3 (0.9) |
Record low °C (°F) | −51.5 (−60.7) |
−49.5 (−57.1) |
−51.0 (−59.8) |
−44.5 (−48.1) |
−32.0 (−25.6) |
−15.2 (4.6) |
−1.5 (29.3) |
−5.0 (23.0) |
−14.0 (6.8) |
−31.0 (−23.8) |
−40.5 (−40.9) |
−48.5 (−55.3) |
−51.5 (−60.7) |
Record low wind chill | −64.7 | −68.2 | −61.8 | −51.4 | −35.1 | −22.7 | 0.0 | −8.9 | −19.8 | −44.3 | −51.7 | −60.2 | −68.2 |
Average precipitation mm (inches) | 9.0 (0.35) |
8.1 (0.32) |
14.1 (0.56) |
20.0 (0.79) |
18.6 (0.73) |
22.1 (0.87) |
36.5 (1.44) |
44.8 (1.76) |
28.7 (1.13) |
28.4 (1.12) |
17.7 (0.70) |
13.5 (0.53) |
261.3 (10.29) |
Average rainfall mm (inches) | 0.0 (0.0) |
0.0 (0.0) |
0.0 (0.0) |
0.0 (0.0) |
1.1 (0.04) |
18.1 (0.71) |
36.5 (1.44) |
43.1 (1.70) |
15.2 (0.60) |
2.6 (0.10) |
0.0 (0.0) |
0.0 (0.0) |
116.6 (4.59) |
Average snowfall cm (inches) | 9.0 (3.5) |
8.1 (3.2) |
14.1 (5.6) |
20.1 (7.9) |
17.7 (7.0) |
4.1 (1.6) |
0.0 (0.0) |
1.6 (0.6) |
13.6 (5.4) |
26.0 (10.2) |
18.4 (7.2) |
13.5 (5.3) |
146.2 (57.6) |
Average precipitation days (≥ 0.2 mm) | 6.6 | 5.0 | 6.9 | 6.7 | 8.1 | 7.2 | 9.6 | 13.1 | 12.5 | 12.8 | 9.2 | 7.2 | 104.8 |
Average rainy days (≥ 0.2 mm) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.6 | 5.9 | 9.6 | 12.8 | 6.5 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 36.0 |
Average snowy days (≥ 0.2 cm) | 6.6 | 5.0 | 6.9 | 6.7 | 7.8 | 1.8 | 0.1 | 0.7 | 7.0 | 12.6 | 9.4 | 7.3 | 71.8 |
Average relative humidity (%) | 72.7 | 78.1 | 73.2 | 80.8 | 82.9 | 77.3 | 66.4 | 72.0 | 81.2 | 85.0 | 79.0 | 78.4 | 77.2 |
Source:
Environment Canada Canadian Climate Normals 1981–2010Cite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the
help page).
|
Climate data for Kugaaruk Airport (no colour) | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Month | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Year |
Record high humidex | −6.7 | −9.9 | −3.5 | 1.3 | 5.4 | 25.3 | 31.2 | 25.7 | 18.4 | 6.0 | −0.7 | −1.5 | 31.2 |
Record high °C (°F) | −7.0 (19.4) |
−10.0 (14.0) |
−3.5 (25.7) |
1.8 (35.2) |
7.5 (45.5) |
26.0 (78.8) |
27.5 (81.5) |
29.0 (84.2) |
18.5 (65.3) |
8.0 (46.4) |
0.0 (32.0) |
−2.5 (27.5) |
29.0 (84.2) |
Mean daily maximum °C (°F) | −29.9 (−21.8) |
−29.6 (−21.3) |
−24.0 (−11.2) |
−14.3 (6.3) |
−4.0 (24.8) |
6.1 (43.0) |
13.9 (57.0) |
10.1 (50.2) |
2.7 (36.9) |
−6.0 (21.2) |
−17.4 (0.7) |
−24.6 (−12.3) |
−9.7 (14.5) |
Daily mean °C (°F) | −33.5 (−28.3) |
−33.5 (−28.3) |
−28.5 (−19.3) |
−19.4 (−2.9) |
−7.9 (17.8) |
2.9 (37.2) |
9.3 (48.7) |
6.5 (43.7) |
0.4 (32.7) |
−9.1 (15.6) |
−21.1 (−6.0) |
−28.3 (−18.9) |
−13.5 (7.7) |
Mean daily minimum °C (°F) | −37.1 (−34.8) |
−37.3 (−35.1) |
−33.0 (−27.4) |
−24.5 (−12.1) |
−11.7 (10.9) |
−0.4 (31.3) |
4.6 (40.3) |
2.9 (37.2) |
−2.0 (28.4) |
−12.1 (10.2) |
−24.9 (−12.8) |
−32.0 (−25.6) |
−17.3 (0.9) |
Record low °C (°F) | −51.5 (−60.7) |
−49.5 (−57.1) |
−51.0 (−59.8) |
−44.5 (−48.1) |
−32.0 (−25.6) |
−15.2 (4.6) |
−1.5 (29.3) |
−5.0 (23.0) |
−14.0 (6.8) |
−31.0 (−23.8) |
−40.5 (−40.9) |
−48.5 (−55.3) |
−51.5 (−60.7) |
Record low wind chill | −64.7 | −68.2 | −61.8 | −51.4 | −35.1 | −22.7 | 0.0 | −8.9 | −19.8 | −44.3 | −51.7 | −60.2 | −68.2 |
Average precipitation mm (inches) | 9.0 (0.35) |
8.1 (0.32) |
14.1 (0.56) |
20.0 (0.79) |
18.6 (0.73) |
22.1 (0.87) |
36.5 (1.44) |
44.8 (1.76) |
28.7 (1.13) |
28.4 (1.12) |
17.7 (0.70) |
13.5 (0.53) |
261.3 (10.29) |
Average rainfall mm (inches) | 0.0 (0.0) |
0.0 (0.0) |
0.0 (0.0) |
0.0 (0.0) |
1.1 (0.04) |
18.1 (0.71) |
36.5 (1.44) |
43.1 (1.70) |
15.2 (0.60) |
2.6 (0.10) |
0.0 (0.0) |
0.0 (0.0) |
116.6 (4.59) |
Average snowfall cm (inches) | 9.0 (3.5) |
8.1 (3.2) |
14.1 (5.6) |
20.1 (7.9) |
17.7 (7.0) |
4.1 (1.6) |
0.0 (0.0) |
1.6 (0.6) |
13.6 (5.4) |
26.0 (10.2) |
18.4 (7.2) |
13.5 (5.3) |
146.2 (57.6) |
Average precipitation days (≥ 0.2 mm) | 6.6 | 5.0 | 6.9 | 6.7 | 8.1 | 7.2 | 9.6 | 13.1 | 12.5 | 12.8 | 9.2 | 7.2 | 104.8 |
Average rainy days (≥ 0.2 mm) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.6 | 5.9 | 9.6 | 12.8 | 6.5 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 36.0 |
Average snowy days (≥ 0.2 cm) | 6.6 | 5.0 | 6.9 | 6.7 | 7.8 | 1.8 | 0.1 | 0.7 | 7.0 | 12.6 | 9.4 | 7.3 | 71.8 |
Average relative humidity (%) | 72.7 | 78.1 | 73.2 | 80.8 | 82.9 | 77.3 | 66.4 | 72.0 | 81.2 | 85.0 | 79.0 | 78.4 | 77.2 |
Source:
Environment Canada Canadian Climate Normals 1981–2010Cite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the
help page).
|
Here's an example of both templates for Kugaaruk a smaller community of 711 people. In this case I've used <div style=width:50%> while the article uses <div style=width:80%>. There is an obvious problem with {{ climate chart}}, see User:Jolly Janner/Climate#Climate lulz for more examples, that has been known about since 2009, Template talk:Climate chart#Scaling related issues, and is not just a problem with cold temperatures. There are some other problems with it. To get an explanation you end up at Template:Climate chart/How to read a climate chart when you click on the "explanation" link. That needs fixing as well if the chart is to be used in a lot of articles. If the chart uses inches for rain, as it should for US places, it rounds them up to one decimal place rather than the customary two decimal places that the National Weather Service uses. Also the figures in the chart are so small as to make them unreadable. I can read the weather box even when set to 50%.
Even if the {{ climate chart}} did work correctly I would still prefer the {{ weatherbox}} because it gives more information and what it shows is more accurate (no rounding). There are problems with the weather box. There have been some concerns that there is way too much blue. However, there are options to change to pastel and green or no colour at all. For some reason it converts mm to three decimal places while it should be two, but cm to in works fine. The % humidity line needs defining, is that the humidity at 6 am, 3 pm or a 24 hour average. Obviously, the weather box can be set to collapsed to avoid distracting the reader. So for somewhere like Austin, Texas#Climate I would reduce the size of the weather box and collapse it. Then the reader has the choice to see greater detail or not. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 17:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
The weather box and the climate chart really do two different, but complementary things. The weatherbox provides detailed data, but isn't very useful as a visualisation. Color coding simply isn't the same thing as a chart. The two templates should be merged, so that we can have both detailed data and a visually effective chart generated from the same input data. Zocky | picture popups 01:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Student7 ( talk) 18:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
<span class="anchor" id="RfC: When is the presentation of statistics, such as with {{ Weather box}} and {{ Climate chart}} excessive?"> Concern has been raised that the use of statistics in {{ Weather box}} and {{ Climate chart}} in some settlement articles may be excessive, and so violate WP:NOTSTAT, and that the presentation of the data may not be following guidance at WP:Embed and MOS:TABLE. A counter-view is that the data is useful, unique to each location, and desired by enough readers to make the use justified and within policy. There have been suggestions that {{ Weather box}} if used should be collapsed, or that {{ Climate chart}} should be used instead. There have been suggestions that such detailed data is best placed in higher level articles, either at state or country level or in dedicated regional climate article such as Climate of south-west England, and that local level articles should summarise the local weather and direct readers to the higher level article for greater detail. Discussion has not reached a consensus. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
{{
Weather box}}
) were not such a visual assault. {{Weather box}}
is essentially a exploitation of a loophole in
MOS:ICONS, to do everything that guideline says not to do; it's an evasion of the intent of the guideline, using HTML and CSS coloring instead of image icons to effectively, on a technicality, plaster a article with cutesy, distracting icon-like Chiclets. I'm sure this template appeals strongly to 13-year-old girls who collect stickers. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
07:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Hi all,
My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.
One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.
This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:
• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film
• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.
• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.
• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____
• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost
The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014
For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (
talk)
09:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi all,
I recently submitted the article Briarcliff Manor, New York to the list of featured article candidates. I am actively following its review, and will be glad to take criticism and advice, and I welcome you to edit the article directly. Would any members of this WikiProject take some time to assist in the article review? Thank you.
Respectfully,
--
ɱ
(talk)
00:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Shijiazhuang has a typical example of the frustratingly useless style of infobox location mapping that is all too common across Wikipedia. When you come to an article about a city, or any other place, the first thing you want to see is a clear map showing location within a context that you understand. Here there are three totally useless maps (for this purpose), and the only useful map is a tiny inset right at the bottom. People need to realise that outlines of countries cut out of their context are often hard to recognise, especially when mixed up with maps of local adminstrative areas with unfamiliar shapes. The inset map, with the surrounding countries, sea and helpful shading, is the one that should be shown prominently at the top in the infobox. The other low-level stuff can be relegated to another place. 86.179.112.79 ( talk) 17:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I just added a request to the assessment request list, but I thought I'd post a notification here because it looks like there's a significant amount of requests awaiting response over there. Could an experienced editor please consider going over each of the articles still needing assessment? Thank you! - Sweet Nightmares 21:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not involved in this project, but I look up a lot of cities. Something that is definitely missing from almost all the articles on small cities, and that would be very useful IMHO, is a consistent (or any) mention of the nearest major city or widely recognizable location. Today I looked up Nathrop, Colorado. While there is a lot of technical information about its location, for the life of me I can't figure out whether this is some remote mining community, or whether it's an exurb of Denver, or close to some more well-known place in Colorado. It seems to me that encyclopedia users would want to have information like this. I know that I do, and I know that it is too often not available in Wikipedia. An exception that I looked at today is Carlsbad, California. When you read the introductory paragarphs, they pretty much tell you just where this place is located.
Another thing that is frequently missing is whether or not a city is in a Metropolitan Statistical Area of any sort. Carlsbad might well be part of the San Diego area, but you can't tell from the article or the infobox. Lou Sander ( talk) 16:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
@ Ezhiki: That is really nice! Thanks for pointing it out. Readers who don't know about that feature are still in the dark about where a little-known place is in relation to better-known places, though. IMHO, something about that should be in the body of the article, unless the place is well-known. Lou Sander ( talk) 00:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, editors of WikiProject Cities:
List of municipalities in Tennessee is outdated, and not, in its current state, one of Wikipedia's best. Thus, I'm nominating it for featured list removal. The relevant discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of municipalities in Tennessee/archive1. Thanks. Seattle ( talk) 15:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
It has been suggested that the subject city subarticle be moved to Louisville Metro. Please read all the arguments made so far and participate if you have a chance. Thanks! Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 21:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
FYI ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Walled towns and ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Fortified cities have been requested to be merged together -- 65.94.169.222 ( talk) 06:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
I am currently working my way through Wikipedia:Good_articles/Geography_and_places#Places, to check on the condition of the listed articles. I have noticed a tendency in some articles to rich use of media, and in particular the use of Template:Weather box. My initial instinct is that the box is rather noisy and distracting, and does not follow guidance at WP:NOTSTAT, WP:Embed and MOS:TABLE, in that if the important/essential information/statistics is already summarised in prose then such a table is either not needed, or if considered useful due to the significance of the climate to the topic, then it should be collapsed. There is also the consideration of due weight and focus - where an article is on a location which is not particularly notable for its climate, and where the information is already given in prose that the weather is typical for the region or country, then displaying a large and colourful table with a lot of detailed weather data for a village seems a little excessive.
However, I have noted that the weather box appears in a wide range of articles, and often has been in place for some time, so its use is well established, so my concerns may be misplaced, and that the box has wide approval and consensus. However, as I couldn't find any previous discussion in the archives, I felt it was worth bringing up for discussion to see what the general consensus is - and if it might be useful to draw up guidelines for use of the box in settlement articles. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Kugaaruk Airport | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Climate chart ( explanation) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Climate data for Kugaaruk Airport (blue colour) | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Month | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Year |
Record high humidex | −6.7 | −9.9 | −3.5 | 1.3 | 5.4 | 25.3 | 31.2 | 25.7 | 18.4 | 6.0 | −0.7 | −1.5 | 31.2 |
Record high °C (°F) | −7.0 (19.4) |
−10.0 (14.0) |
−3.5 (25.7) |
1.8 (35.2) |
7.5 (45.5) |
26.0 (78.8) |
27.5 (81.5) |
29.0 (84.2) |
18.5 (65.3) |
8.0 (46.4) |
0.0 (32.0) |
−2.5 (27.5) |
29.0 (84.2) |
Mean daily maximum °C (°F) | −29.9 (−21.8) |
−29.6 (−21.3) |
−24.0 (−11.2) |
−14.3 (6.3) |
−4.0 (24.8) |
6.1 (43.0) |
13.9 (57.0) |
10.1 (50.2) |
2.7 (36.9) |
−6.0 (21.2) |
−17.4 (0.7) |
−24.6 (−12.3) |
−9.7 (14.5) |
Daily mean °C (°F) | −33.5 (−28.3) |
−33.5 (−28.3) |
−28.5 (−19.3) |
−19.4 (−2.9) |
−7.9 (17.8) |
2.9 (37.2) |
9.3 (48.7) |
6.5 (43.7) |
0.4 (32.7) |
−9.1 (15.6) |
−21.1 (−6.0) |
−28.3 (−18.9) |
−13.5 (7.7) |
Mean daily minimum °C (°F) | −37.1 (−34.8) |
−37.3 (−35.1) |
−33.0 (−27.4) |
−24.5 (−12.1) |
−11.7 (10.9) |
−0.4 (31.3) |
4.6 (40.3) |
2.9 (37.2) |
−2.0 (28.4) |
−12.1 (10.2) |
−24.9 (−12.8) |
−32.0 (−25.6) |
−17.3 (0.9) |
Record low °C (°F) | −51.5 (−60.7) |
−49.5 (−57.1) |
−51.0 (−59.8) |
−44.5 (−48.1) |
−32.0 (−25.6) |
−15.2 (4.6) |
−1.5 (29.3) |
−5.0 (23.0) |
−14.0 (6.8) |
−31.0 (−23.8) |
−40.5 (−40.9) |
−48.5 (−55.3) |
−51.5 (−60.7) |
Record low wind chill | −64.7 | −68.2 | −61.8 | −51.4 | −35.1 | −22.7 | 0.0 | −8.9 | −19.8 | −44.3 | −51.7 | −60.2 | −68.2 |
Average precipitation mm (inches) | 9.0 (0.35) |
8.1 (0.32) |
14.1 (0.56) |
20.0 (0.79) |
18.6 (0.73) |
22.1 (0.87) |
36.5 (1.44) |
44.8 (1.76) |
28.7 (1.13) |
28.4 (1.12) |
17.7 (0.70) |
13.5 (0.53) |
261.3 (10.29) |
Average rainfall mm (inches) | 0.0 (0.0) |
0.0 (0.0) |
0.0 (0.0) |
0.0 (0.0) |
1.1 (0.04) |
18.1 (0.71) |
36.5 (1.44) |
43.1 (1.70) |
15.2 (0.60) |
2.6 (0.10) |
0.0 (0.0) |
0.0 (0.0) |
116.6 (4.59) |
Average snowfall cm (inches) | 9.0 (3.5) |
8.1 (3.2) |
14.1 (5.6) |
20.1 (7.9) |
17.7 (7.0) |
4.1 (1.6) |
0.0 (0.0) |
1.6 (0.6) |
13.6 (5.4) |
26.0 (10.2) |
18.4 (7.2) |
13.5 (5.3) |
146.2 (57.6) |
Average precipitation days (≥ 0.2 mm) | 6.6 | 5.0 | 6.9 | 6.7 | 8.1 | 7.2 | 9.6 | 13.1 | 12.5 | 12.8 | 9.2 | 7.2 | 104.8 |
Average rainy days (≥ 0.2 mm) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.6 | 5.9 | 9.6 | 12.8 | 6.5 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 36.0 |
Average snowy days (≥ 0.2 cm) | 6.6 | 5.0 | 6.9 | 6.7 | 7.8 | 1.8 | 0.1 | 0.7 | 7.0 | 12.6 | 9.4 | 7.3 | 71.8 |
Average relative humidity (%) | 72.7 | 78.1 | 73.2 | 80.8 | 82.9 | 77.3 | 66.4 | 72.0 | 81.2 | 85.0 | 79.0 | 78.4 | 77.2 |
Source:
Environment Canada Canadian Climate Normals 1981–2010Cite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the
help page).
|
Climate data for Kugaaruk Airport (pastel & green) | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Month | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Year |
Record high humidex | −6.7 | −9.9 | −3.5 | 1.3 | 5.4 | 25.3 | 31.2 | 25.7 | 18.4 | 6.0 | −0.7 | −1.5 | 31.2 |
Record high °C (°F) | −7.0 (19.4) |
−10.0 (14.0) |
−3.5 (25.7) |
1.8 (35.2) |
7.5 (45.5) |
26.0 (78.8) |
27.5 (81.5) |
29.0 (84.2) |
18.5 (65.3) |
8.0 (46.4) |
0.0 (32.0) |
−2.5 (27.5) |
29.0 (84.2) |
Mean daily maximum °C (°F) | −29.9 (−21.8) |
−29.6 (−21.3) |
−24.0 (−11.2) |
−14.3 (6.3) |
−4.0 (24.8) |
6.1 (43.0) |
13.9 (57.0) |
10.1 (50.2) |
2.7 (36.9) |
−6.0 (21.2) |
−17.4 (0.7) |
−24.6 (−12.3) |
−9.7 (14.5) |
Daily mean °C (°F) | −33.5 (−28.3) |
−33.5 (−28.3) |
−28.5 (−19.3) |
−19.4 (−2.9) |
−7.9 (17.8) |
2.9 (37.2) |
9.3 (48.7) |
6.5 (43.7) |
0.4 (32.7) |
−9.1 (15.6) |
−21.1 (−6.0) |
−28.3 (−18.9) |
−13.5 (7.7) |
Mean daily minimum °C (°F) | −37.1 (−34.8) |
−37.3 (−35.1) |
−33.0 (−27.4) |
−24.5 (−12.1) |
−11.7 (10.9) |
−0.4 (31.3) |
4.6 (40.3) |
2.9 (37.2) |
−2.0 (28.4) |
−12.1 (10.2) |
−24.9 (−12.8) |
−32.0 (−25.6) |
−17.3 (0.9) |
Record low °C (°F) | −51.5 (−60.7) |
−49.5 (−57.1) |
−51.0 (−59.8) |
−44.5 (−48.1) |
−32.0 (−25.6) |
−15.2 (4.6) |
−1.5 (29.3) |
−5.0 (23.0) |
−14.0 (6.8) |
−31.0 (−23.8) |
−40.5 (−40.9) |
−48.5 (−55.3) |
−51.5 (−60.7) |
Record low wind chill | −64.7 | −68.2 | −61.8 | −51.4 | −35.1 | −22.7 | 0.0 | −8.9 | −19.8 | −44.3 | −51.7 | −60.2 | −68.2 |
Average precipitation mm (inches) | 9.0 (0.35) |
8.1 (0.32) |
14.1 (0.56) |
20.0 (0.79) |
18.6 (0.73) |
22.1 (0.87) |
36.5 (1.44) |
44.8 (1.76) |
28.7 (1.13) |
28.4 (1.12) |
17.7 (0.70) |
13.5 (0.53) |
261.3 (10.29) |
Average rainfall mm (inches) | 0.0 (0.0) |
0.0 (0.0) |
0.0 (0.0) |
0.0 (0.0) |
1.1 (0.04) |
18.1 (0.71) |
36.5 (1.44) |
43.1 (1.70) |
15.2 (0.60) |
2.6 (0.10) |
0.0 (0.0) |
0.0 (0.0) |
116.6 (4.59) |
Average snowfall cm (inches) | 9.0 (3.5) |
8.1 (3.2) |
14.1 (5.6) |
20.1 (7.9) |
17.7 (7.0) |
4.1 (1.6) |
0.0 (0.0) |
1.6 (0.6) |
13.6 (5.4) |
26.0 (10.2) |
18.4 (7.2) |
13.5 (5.3) |
146.2 (57.6) |
Average precipitation days (≥ 0.2 mm) | 6.6 | 5.0 | 6.9 | 6.7 | 8.1 | 7.2 | 9.6 | 13.1 | 12.5 | 12.8 | 9.2 | 7.2 | 104.8 |
Average rainy days (≥ 0.2 mm) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.6 | 5.9 | 9.6 | 12.8 | 6.5 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 36.0 |
Average snowy days (≥ 0.2 cm) | 6.6 | 5.0 | 6.9 | 6.7 | 7.8 | 1.8 | 0.1 | 0.7 | 7.0 | 12.6 | 9.4 | 7.3 | 71.8 |
Average relative humidity (%) | 72.7 | 78.1 | 73.2 | 80.8 | 82.9 | 77.3 | 66.4 | 72.0 | 81.2 | 85.0 | 79.0 | 78.4 | 77.2 |
Source:
Environment Canada Canadian Climate Normals 1981–2010Cite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the
help page).
|
Climate data for Kugaaruk Airport (no colour) | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Month | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Year |
Record high humidex | −6.7 | −9.9 | −3.5 | 1.3 | 5.4 | 25.3 | 31.2 | 25.7 | 18.4 | 6.0 | −0.7 | −1.5 | 31.2 |
Record high °C (°F) | −7.0 (19.4) |
−10.0 (14.0) |
−3.5 (25.7) |
1.8 (35.2) |
7.5 (45.5) |
26.0 (78.8) |
27.5 (81.5) |
29.0 (84.2) |
18.5 (65.3) |
8.0 (46.4) |
0.0 (32.0) |
−2.5 (27.5) |
29.0 (84.2) |
Mean daily maximum °C (°F) | −29.9 (−21.8) |
−29.6 (−21.3) |
−24.0 (−11.2) |
−14.3 (6.3) |
−4.0 (24.8) |
6.1 (43.0) |
13.9 (57.0) |
10.1 (50.2) |
2.7 (36.9) |
−6.0 (21.2) |
−17.4 (0.7) |
−24.6 (−12.3) |
−9.7 (14.5) |
Daily mean °C (°F) | −33.5 (−28.3) |
−33.5 (−28.3) |
−28.5 (−19.3) |
−19.4 (−2.9) |
−7.9 (17.8) |
2.9 (37.2) |
9.3 (48.7) |
6.5 (43.7) |
0.4 (32.7) |
−9.1 (15.6) |
−21.1 (−6.0) |
−28.3 (−18.9) |
−13.5 (7.7) |
Mean daily minimum °C (°F) | −37.1 (−34.8) |
−37.3 (−35.1) |
−33.0 (−27.4) |
−24.5 (−12.1) |
−11.7 (10.9) |
−0.4 (31.3) |
4.6 (40.3) |
2.9 (37.2) |
−2.0 (28.4) |
−12.1 (10.2) |
−24.9 (−12.8) |
−32.0 (−25.6) |
−17.3 (0.9) |
Record low °C (°F) | −51.5 (−60.7) |
−49.5 (−57.1) |
−51.0 (−59.8) |
−44.5 (−48.1) |
−32.0 (−25.6) |
−15.2 (4.6) |
−1.5 (29.3) |
−5.0 (23.0) |
−14.0 (6.8) |
−31.0 (−23.8) |
−40.5 (−40.9) |
−48.5 (−55.3) |
−51.5 (−60.7) |
Record low wind chill | −64.7 | −68.2 | −61.8 | −51.4 | −35.1 | −22.7 | 0.0 | −8.9 | −19.8 | −44.3 | −51.7 | −60.2 | −68.2 |
Average precipitation mm (inches) | 9.0 (0.35) |
8.1 (0.32) |
14.1 (0.56) |
20.0 (0.79) |
18.6 (0.73) |
22.1 (0.87) |
36.5 (1.44) |
44.8 (1.76) |
28.7 (1.13) |
28.4 (1.12) |
17.7 (0.70) |
13.5 (0.53) |
261.3 (10.29) |
Average rainfall mm (inches) | 0.0 (0.0) |
0.0 (0.0) |
0.0 (0.0) |
0.0 (0.0) |
1.1 (0.04) |
18.1 (0.71) |
36.5 (1.44) |
43.1 (1.70) |
15.2 (0.60) |
2.6 (0.10) |
0.0 (0.0) |
0.0 (0.0) |
116.6 (4.59) |
Average snowfall cm (inches) | 9.0 (3.5) |
8.1 (3.2) |
14.1 (5.6) |
20.1 (7.9) |
17.7 (7.0) |
4.1 (1.6) |
0.0 (0.0) |
1.6 (0.6) |
13.6 (5.4) |
26.0 (10.2) |
18.4 (7.2) |
13.5 (5.3) |
146.2 (57.6) |
Average precipitation days (≥ 0.2 mm) | 6.6 | 5.0 | 6.9 | 6.7 | 8.1 | 7.2 | 9.6 | 13.1 | 12.5 | 12.8 | 9.2 | 7.2 | 104.8 |
Average rainy days (≥ 0.2 mm) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.6 | 5.9 | 9.6 | 12.8 | 6.5 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 36.0 |
Average snowy days (≥ 0.2 cm) | 6.6 | 5.0 | 6.9 | 6.7 | 7.8 | 1.8 | 0.1 | 0.7 | 7.0 | 12.6 | 9.4 | 7.3 | 71.8 |
Average relative humidity (%) | 72.7 | 78.1 | 73.2 | 80.8 | 82.9 | 77.3 | 66.4 | 72.0 | 81.2 | 85.0 | 79.0 | 78.4 | 77.2 |
Source:
Environment Canada Canadian Climate Normals 1981–2010Cite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the
help page).
|
Here's an example of both templates for Kugaaruk a smaller community of 711 people. In this case I've used <div style=width:50%> while the article uses <div style=width:80%>. There is an obvious problem with {{ climate chart}}, see User:Jolly Janner/Climate#Climate lulz for more examples, that has been known about since 2009, Template talk:Climate chart#Scaling related issues, and is not just a problem with cold temperatures. There are some other problems with it. To get an explanation you end up at Template:Climate chart/How to read a climate chart when you click on the "explanation" link. That needs fixing as well if the chart is to be used in a lot of articles. If the chart uses inches for rain, as it should for US places, it rounds them up to one decimal place rather than the customary two decimal places that the National Weather Service uses. Also the figures in the chart are so small as to make them unreadable. I can read the weather box even when set to 50%.
Even if the {{ climate chart}} did work correctly I would still prefer the {{ weatherbox}} because it gives more information and what it shows is more accurate (no rounding). There are problems with the weather box. There have been some concerns that there is way too much blue. However, there are options to change to pastel and green or no colour at all. For some reason it converts mm to three decimal places while it should be two, but cm to in works fine. The % humidity line needs defining, is that the humidity at 6 am, 3 pm or a 24 hour average. Obviously, the weather box can be set to collapsed to avoid distracting the reader. So for somewhere like Austin, Texas#Climate I would reduce the size of the weather box and collapse it. Then the reader has the choice to see greater detail or not. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 17:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
The weather box and the climate chart really do two different, but complementary things. The weatherbox provides detailed data, but isn't very useful as a visualisation. Color coding simply isn't the same thing as a chart. The two templates should be merged, so that we can have both detailed data and a visually effective chart generated from the same input data. Zocky | picture popups 01:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Student7 ( talk) 18:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
<span class="anchor" id="RfC: When is the presentation of statistics, such as with {{ Weather box}} and {{ Climate chart}} excessive?"> Concern has been raised that the use of statistics in {{ Weather box}} and {{ Climate chart}} in some settlement articles may be excessive, and so violate WP:NOTSTAT, and that the presentation of the data may not be following guidance at WP:Embed and MOS:TABLE. A counter-view is that the data is useful, unique to each location, and desired by enough readers to make the use justified and within policy. There have been suggestions that {{ Weather box}} if used should be collapsed, or that {{ Climate chart}} should be used instead. There have been suggestions that such detailed data is best placed in higher level articles, either at state or country level or in dedicated regional climate article such as Climate of south-west England, and that local level articles should summarise the local weather and direct readers to the higher level article for greater detail. Discussion has not reached a consensus. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
{{
Weather box}}
) were not such a visual assault. {{Weather box}}
is essentially a exploitation of a loophole in
MOS:ICONS, to do everything that guideline says not to do; it's an evasion of the intent of the guideline, using HTML and CSS coloring instead of image icons to effectively, on a technicality, plaster a article with cutesy, distracting icon-like Chiclets. I'm sure this template appeals strongly to 13-year-old girls who collect stickers. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
07:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Hi all,
My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.
One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.
This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:
• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film
• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.
• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.
• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____
• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost
The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014
For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (
talk)
09:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi all,
I recently submitted the article Briarcliff Manor, New York to the list of featured article candidates. I am actively following its review, and will be glad to take criticism and advice, and I welcome you to edit the article directly. Would any members of this WikiProject take some time to assist in the article review? Thank you.
Respectfully,
--
ɱ
(talk)
00:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Shijiazhuang has a typical example of the frustratingly useless style of infobox location mapping that is all too common across Wikipedia. When you come to an article about a city, or any other place, the first thing you want to see is a clear map showing location within a context that you understand. Here there are three totally useless maps (for this purpose), and the only useful map is a tiny inset right at the bottom. People need to realise that outlines of countries cut out of their context are often hard to recognise, especially when mixed up with maps of local adminstrative areas with unfamiliar shapes. The inset map, with the surrounding countries, sea and helpful shading, is the one that should be shown prominently at the top in the infobox. The other low-level stuff can be relegated to another place. 86.179.112.79 ( talk) 17:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I just added a request to the assessment request list, but I thought I'd post a notification here because it looks like there's a significant amount of requests awaiting response over there. Could an experienced editor please consider going over each of the articles still needing assessment? Thank you! - Sweet Nightmares 21:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not involved in this project, but I look up a lot of cities. Something that is definitely missing from almost all the articles on small cities, and that would be very useful IMHO, is a consistent (or any) mention of the nearest major city or widely recognizable location. Today I looked up Nathrop, Colorado. While there is a lot of technical information about its location, for the life of me I can't figure out whether this is some remote mining community, or whether it's an exurb of Denver, or close to some more well-known place in Colorado. It seems to me that encyclopedia users would want to have information like this. I know that I do, and I know that it is too often not available in Wikipedia. An exception that I looked at today is Carlsbad, California. When you read the introductory paragarphs, they pretty much tell you just where this place is located.
Another thing that is frequently missing is whether or not a city is in a Metropolitan Statistical Area of any sort. Carlsbad might well be part of the San Diego area, but you can't tell from the article or the infobox. Lou Sander ( talk) 16:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
@ Ezhiki: That is really nice! Thanks for pointing it out. Readers who don't know about that feature are still in the dark about where a little-known place is in relation to better-known places, though. IMHO, something about that should be in the body of the article, unless the place is well-known. Lou Sander ( talk) 00:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, editors of WikiProject Cities:
List of municipalities in Tennessee is outdated, and not, in its current state, one of Wikipedia's best. Thus, I'm nominating it for featured list removal. The relevant discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of municipalities in Tennessee/archive1. Thanks. Seattle ( talk) 15:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
It has been suggested that the subject city subarticle be moved to Louisville Metro. Please read all the arguments made so far and participate if you have a chance. Thanks! Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 21:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
FYI ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Walled towns and ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Fortified cities have been requested to be merged together -- 65.94.169.222 ( talk) 06:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)