User talk:Ssbbplayer

Ssbbplayer, in a vast place, weather may vary. So, it is expected for a large megacity having more than one weatherbox.

Kolkata is the 3rd largest megacity in India, ranks 16 in the world. It is a big area.

The weatherbox given for Kolkata is of Alipore, south Kolkata. Dumdum is a city in north Kolkata. For Dumdum, NOAA source is available (for normals). For extremes, India Meteorological Department data is also available. So, I want to create an another weatherbox for Dumdum, which will represent north Kolkata. I can give you the sources, if you agree with me.

(talk) 12:17 (IST), 4 November 2020 —Preceding undated comment added 06:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@2409:4061:2E04:35DE:0:0:D88:3102: Hi. Sorry for the late reply, I am currently working through updating the climate data of various cities in India by state (some states have a lot of stations). I will try to look at it later on when I finally get to West Bengal. With regards to adding in Dumdum, if there is a source for it, I am fine with that. Cheers.

Update: Alright, looking at the template for Kolkata, I checked it. I would agree with adding in another weatherbox for Dundum. I just formatted and fix values per source; other than that, that was really good you added in the data. Thanks!. Ssbbplayer (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ssbbplayer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Ymblanter (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you write something on Talk:Dnipropetrovsk explaining why it is best that the sunshine data from an inferior source is best deleted.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing yeoman work. Keep it up, and thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your opponent has changed the colour of weather boxes back again for at least one city.[1] Instead of just reverting like you did last time, please could you open a discussion on an article talk page.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion of what colours they should be at Talk:Lviv#The colours used on the weather box.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work in updating climate data. There is an IP vandal out there who is dedicated to falsifying the climate data of major Indian cities. Generally the stats vandalism stay unnoticed for many months if not years. Your work is helping to undo this. Have a great weekend. Best wishes Span (talk) 22:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

I noticed that you have been working hard with the climate data in several articles. But I am also aware that there is ongoing vandalism, and I want to thank you for standing up for it. It must definitely suck having do deal with it constantly. Please don't get discouraged with Wikipedia. If you have any problems, contact an administrator so you can work things out. Maybe they can lock any particular articles and/or request blocking an IP user that is causing trouble. Good day and thanks for your hard work. ComputerJA (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ssbbplayer. You have new messages at ComputerJA's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Ssbbplayer. You have new messages at ComputerJA's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Reading the climate and average temperature descriptions, I conclude that the map in Köppen climate classification is a lot more accurate than the map in the source in Erfurt article. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Congrats for your work, Climate Man.

Rakela (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ssbbplayer! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that the edit summary from the other day got cut off. I removed the snow for a couple of reason. The box has precipitation and if the snow is added then the rain should be added as well. However, in the case of Vancouver there is already Climate of Vancouver so I think keeping the box smaller is a better idea. Sorry I didn't explain this earlier. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I put back the climate chart. What doesn't agree with official climate data? A quick check against here doesn't provide any obvious discrepancies. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 04:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the error in the climate chart so that the highs and lows match the offical data in the climate box below (instead of being 24 in April when it is supposed to be 30).Ssbbplayer (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding the above 3RR warning, you are doing good work and are an asset to Wikipedia. Regarding dealing with certain editors, I humbly offer the following guidance. Some of it may fall in the "do as I say, not as I do" category...

• Patience is a virtue
• Remain calm and carry on
• No good deed goes unpunished - Oscar Wilde
• Never argue with an idiot (at least not in the edit summary, initiate a discussion on the talk page instead)

Cheers! Sandcherry (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. The key thing is that the climate data is often not edited that much and errors like these can persist for a long time.Ssbbplayer (talk) 02:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[2]Could you please amplify your reason for this change? I note that neither your edit nor the previous text actually provided a cite. See Falkland Islands#Climate, where it is actually described as being on the border of two climate types. Would that material be more appropriate? Regards Wee Curry Monster talk 16:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will use the Peel et al. source for the koppen climate classification. It is tundra because the mean temperature in the warmest month is below 10 °C (50 °F) but above 0 °C (32 °F) and closely borders it so it is a borderline case. So I included it. Secondly, the classification of "em" in the previous revision is non-existent. Ssbbplayer (talk) 16:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That material would be appropriate.Ssbbplayer (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think your snowfall totals are wrong somewhere. Per [3], the city sees ~150 inches of snow each year. The totals you have put in only add up to ~114. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the source already. The reason for the difference is that the snowfall I put is data recorded from 1981-2011 but that is from a longer time period. You can add back in the snowfall data (all the others must remain unchanged) if you want but I prefer that all the data (except sunshine) is from the same reference period. But I am concerned about the source however. Looking at other cities I do not know how some cities in the deep south get snowfall in July (marked by T). Ssbbplayer (talk) 23:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note F, at the beginning, says that hail is included, so I assume that the "T" means that there is a tiny average of hail from one or two years in the reference period. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I must have misinterpreted the data. Therefore the reason that the snowfall totals are different is that it was recorded from 1981-2010 so it might have been a warmer time period than that source which includes more years (including the cooler periods). But then, if the snowy days is from the same reference period, then the snowfall amounts must be from the same reference period, otherwise, the climate box is not accurate and consistent. Ssbbplayer (talk) 12:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, when you update to 1981–2010 normals for US locations such as you did at Pensacola, FL, could you be sure to use the normals and not averages? Meteorological agencies such as TWC and Accuweather which rely on NOAA data solely use the former; it sure took me a while to notice the difference between normals and averages for NYC. In http://www.nws.noaa.gov/climate/xmacis.php?wfo=FOO, the correct normals can be accessed by "Daily/monthly normals". GotR ^Talk 04:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I understand your point. That is why you changed the values a bit on the Marquette article because you used the values under "Daily/monthly normals". It took me a while to find out why you did that. What is the difference between normals and averages? Ssbbplayer (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, at least you explained your reasons behind changing the numbers so in the future I do not accidentally revert it. Ssbbplayer (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think Environment Canada may have updated some of the data since you entered it. The only reason I noticed was because I was looking for a particular high temperature in January at Cambridge Bay, see this for January, April and May. On the other hand Alert does not seem to have changed. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 13:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This would be attributed to one of those small errors where I forgot to update the record temperatures (it happened a couple of times in other locations but most of the time I catch it before the edit is saved). It would have been just an error that I must have looked over accidentally, which is true given that the data format is much harder to read than the tabular format in the 1971-2000 normals data, making it harder to determine whether I entered the same values as the one in the source. At the same time, I would have seen that Environment Canada might have changed some record values since some of them are dubious (eg. [4], [5]). The one at Alert did not changed which would mean I entered in the data correctly. They have not changed any values since the CSV files were available back in September. Ssbbplayer (talk) 02:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, that's alright. I probably overreacted somewhat after noticing Mt173's edits to San Luis Río Colorado, where they added very dubious record temperature data (which can also be found at the Mexican Meteorological Service site, but they just haven't gotten round to scrubbing it yet ... see my comments on the talk page). Unless there are similar concerns with the Guadalajara record temperatures, then it's probably OK to leave them there. Sorry for throwing the baby out with the bathwater in this case. Graham87 02:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken care of the rest of the cities that have sun data for 1961–90: just look in my user-space: User:Lieutenant of Melkor/Climate/US with percent sun. However, to protect from IP vandalism, I'd rather the data all be contained within indefinitely semi-protected templates as I've done with several cities. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 17:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for updating the sunshine data for many of the cities in USA to a better source and reverting vandalism to the data that I could not find. At least other users are understanding the rationale behind using NOAA instead of HKO as a source for sunshine data based on the edit summaries. About the point about protecting the data with semi-protected templates, it is good but semi-protecting indefinitely the weather box templates may not be useful. Occasionally, IP users have provided valuble sources such as example although it is true that the climate data has been vandalized often by IP users. A better way is to semi-protect it for a while if vandalism is frequent since I find that the climate section is one of the most least edited section. Ssbbplayer (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'll let the templates stay as they are, but if there is even the slightest vandalism to the data, I'll create new templates from my user pages and transclude them. And I hope you're updating the snowfall normals as well, and the "-7777" in the .TXT files indicates the normal is trace amounts, if talking about sums. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 18:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with that. Hopefully, I will try to update the snowfall normals as soon as I can. Ssbbplayer (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Talk page stalker) - Ssbbplayer you should apply for Wikipedia:Template editor so you can edit all the templates even the locked up ones at will. If you do I will write a message in-support of you having this ability. Just let me know if your interested. -- Moxy (talk) 19:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy: they are only semi-protected. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 22:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made a small addition to your comments so that the div style would appear. I didn't change anything you had said. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 15:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I've done something similar. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 15:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities#RfC: When is the presentation of statistics excessive.......conversation starts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities#Weather box--Moxy (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I don't see an infobox field named "precipitation colour" on {{Infobox body of water}}. Conifer (talk) 03:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox field named "precipitation colour" is found on the {{Weather box}} that enables the precipitation colour to be changed from the default one to a different colour (usually green), which can be useful in distinguishing those record lows and avg. precipitation days/snow from precipitation amounts, given that these are different things being measured at that location and that green is used in radar images. The weather box template, is responsible for that climate table on the Crater Lake climate subsection, not the {{Infobox body of water}}. See the differences in the climate table in these two revisions in which the first one has the infobox field named "precipitation colour" removed and the second one with it added. [6] and [7] I hope this helps in clarifying the misunderstanding. Ssbbplayer (talk) 04:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ssbbplayer, thanks for providing the climate box to some Malaysian cities/town articles. I am quite interested with the new box you provide, can you as well put a new climate box to other Malaysian cities such as George Town, Johor Bahru, Kuala Terengganu and Shah Alam. Thank you. ~ Muffin Wizard ^;) 03:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will, provided that there is a reliable source for that location. I know that previously on some pages, there were multiple climate boxes that just showed data from one year, so it does not tell the reader what is the climate like. Although I find it pretty hard to find other sources other than World Meteorological Organization and NOAA that can provide good and reliable climate data. I am pretty sure that the Malaysian Meteorological Department does not put that much climate information on their website compared to some other countries like Canada, USA and Australia that really good climate data in many places.Ssbbplayer (talk) 03:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

reg your culinary suggestions I think they may be appreciated at Wikivoyage, try here. Dan Koehl (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the sorting in the temperature table here. In the Climate of Minnesota#Statistics section the temperature table does not sort correctly either. You should double check the tale to make sure it does sort OK. The town names will not sort in alphabetical order but in the order you currently have them. The sort is done by the first number it sees and doesn't care if it is 1 or 100. So 100 will always sort before 2 unless you use a sort template. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice!:). Next time I will double check. It was my first time adding in a table and I did copied the table from that page without checking. Ssbbplayer (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to enhance the weather boxes. Don't you think that there's something wrong with the records of NOAA? It habitually gives the highest numbers for temperatures in December and you substitute those numbers with the July records. That's wrong. It's also very unlikely that July records the highest temperatures in Egypt, because if you are familiar with the region's climate, you would definitely know that May is the month with the highest record temperatures, it is when the seasonal sand storm erupts. Even if you are not convinced, just simply refer to other sources and you'll confirm my words. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think some of the data from NOAA looks highly suspicious and that's very likely to be an error that I did not catch. This does occur occasionally. Sorry, I'm not really familiar with the region's climate so I just assume that July would have the highest temperatures. Thanks for pointing information out about the climate in Egypt and the errors I make. You are free to fix them. This does happen occasionally in some climate data from NOAA (eg. in Argentina, it habitually gives mean temperatures with values ending in 0.8 such as 21.8, 19.8, etc. which is wrong) that I have edited in numerous weather boxes but NOAA is a reliable source and provides a lot of good climate info. Ssbbplayer (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will change the records. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.Ssbbplayer (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please not remove data missing from NOAA? Like the sunshine data there. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also want you to be extremely trusting that the sources I cite are very reliable. I check them and make sure they don't make up values on World Weather Online. I would like you not to remove already given sources. Just add sources, don't remove the existing ones. I scanned the internet so much to find the sources. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, given that many cities in the Middle East have poor climatic information, I would be fine with it. Thanks for bringing up the concern so I don't accidentally remove it next time. Normally, I would remove sources that are unreliable or any duplicate sources and I probably didn't explained it clearly in my edits. Climate charts (I checked it) uses the same numbers as the one they use from NOAA so it is a duplicate source. It's not useful to add in 2 sources with the same info and causes the weather box to clutter up with too much sources. Regarding the usage of unreliable sources, it's better to remove it any of its associated numbers since many of them may be biased and try to skew the numbers. For example, the data from weather2travel.com for Istanbul as an example shows that it averages more than 2,800 hours of sunshine per year, yet official data indicates only 2,200 hours Official data in Turkish. Right now, I would remove climate charts since it's a duplicate source and keep the rest (Voodoo skies, and weather2traveL) unless I find a longer period of extremes or find good sunshine data given that the climate data in Middle Eastern cities is not widely available. Ssbbplayer (talk) 01:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you consider duplicate sources are not, because sometimes websites are down or inaccessible or badly legible for some reason. It's better to leave them. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I am fine with that. If others see it inaccessible, it is not good. But NOAA source should stay as it has a richer set of data that HKO doesn't have. However the sunshine data should use NOAA values, not Hong Kong Observatory values. This is because the NOAA values are the official WMO climatological values (can be viewed on UN DATA). If you compare the NOAA values and the one on UN DATA, they are the same. Hong Kong Observatory sun values are inaccurate because for some countries such as USA and Canada which record only monthly values, Hong Kong Observatory takes these monthly values and convert it into daily values and round it to the nearest tenth, introducing rounding errors (eg. if the monthly value in July is 285.9, HKO would report it as 9.2 , which is off if one reconverts it into monthly values). Secondly, the NOAA source is convenient as it calculates the sunshine hours for you whereas HKO recognizes someone to manually input values into a calculator so NOAA is easier to verify. Ssbbplayer (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the Vietnamese people article, I can't vouch for the first 2 papers, but the 3rd source from National Geographic does mention Vietnam. Scroll down to Kinh: https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/reference-populations/ There is even a wikipedia page for that project.Darkesirranch (talk)

Okay I might had accidentally removed the national geographic article. It would be okay to keep it there but those first 2 sources that I removed, the full texts are available (see the links below) but they only mention about the Han chinese and nothing about Vietnamese people. These 2 sources are found in the wiki article on Han people. There were misinterpretations from these 2 sources since the statement "Multiple studies show that Southern Chinese, Vietnamese and Tai people are intermediate between Northeast Asian and Southeast Asian" is incorrect as the editor who added them used only primary sources, not review articles so it is clearly WP:OR. Ssbbplayer (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[8] [9]

I reverted it for now. Please give a clear reason before starting an edit war. Krett12 (talk) 17:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed excess whitespace in the template parameters. That's why. I'm explaining this on the talk page for Missoula. Ssbbplayer (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ;) Krett12 (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just for a useful hint. I had been editing numerous weather boxes in many cities. Each one usually takes up about 4 kb or 5 kb, depending on the amount of information put in for a highly detailed one like the Missoula weather box (assuming little whitespace). It takes up quite a bit of space so adding 2 would be quite a lot unless you need to.:) Ssbbplayer (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssbbplayer: Hi, you helped me fill out weather information on the Amman page. I was wondering if you can help me out in the Aqaba climate weather section. --Makeandtoss (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After performing an extensive search in English, I could not find any reliable climate data for Aqaba. The source for the record highs and lows in Amman only has data available in Russia and the CIS, and selected cities from around the world. I tried to search on KNMI which has a rich set of meteorological data, albeit difficult to read to new users but it doesn't have data from Jordan. Unfortunately, I know nothing about Arabic so it would be difficult to search. The NOAA data used for Amman is only available for 3 other locations in Jordan, which is not really that good compared to other countries. This is not good but do not worry. It is not a prerequisite to be a Good article. Many good articles often contain basic climate data; some of them do not have any climate data available. Ssbbplayer (talk) 03:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssbbplayer: What about the already existing reference, and if theres anything in Arabic I can translate. If not, thank you anyways. --Makeandtoss (talk) 09:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Existing reference has only average high, low, precipitation and average # of days with precipitation. Ssbbplayer (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've read your message. When I suggested to add that Argentina has the second largest economy in South America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Argentina you asked me for a source. Here you have one http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-18/argentina-s-economy-expanded-2-3-in-second-quarter My suggestion was "Argentina has the second-largest economy in South America, the third-largest in Latin America and is a member of the G-15 and G-20 major economies". All that information (G15,G20 and 3rd economy was already written in that article, my addition is the one I suggested you). Thanks! --Argentowiki93 (talk) 03:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's good. The source is okay to use for that statement. I put it in with my edits. I added the source in the statement under the economy subsection as the lead sentence does not really include references if it summarizes it.

Hello, Ssbbplayer -- As you may have seen, I accepted the assignment to copy-edit Climate of Argentina (again). It's late now, so I will only spend a few more minutes on the article, but I will do more tomorrow. I will leave any questions or concerns here as I go through the article.

1) I'd like to re-word the first sentence in the lead. Normally, I would just go ahead and re-word it without asking, but since it's the first sentence, and since you've been working so hard on the article, I thought I'd run the revised sentence by you and see how you like it before I make the change to the article. If you don't like it, or want to change anything, just let me know (here).

Here is the sentence as it is now:

• The climate of Argentina encompasses a wide variety of climate types owing to the country's vast extent (extending from latitude 22oS to 55oS) and its range in altitude, which together create a wide variety of biomes.

I know it's probably recommended to have the subject of the article (which is often also the title) early in the first sentence in the lead, but I'm not crazy about the wording of this sentence. "Owing to" is not the most elegant phrase, and you've got "a wide variety of" twice, you've got "climate" twice, and you have both "Argentina" and "the country", which is kind of a waste of a word (that is, unnecessarily adding a word), so... how about this?

• Argentina's vast size and its considerable range in altitude make for a climate that encompasses a wide range of types and a biome that possesses great variety.

I would leave the latitude details for another sentence. Rothorpe What do you think? Can you think of other ways to word this sentence, the first in the article? Corinne (talk) 04:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the new one. It sounds more nicer and concise without going too promotional over it. I would recommend using that. Ssbbplayer (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ssbbplayer First, let me apologize for the delay in my copy-editing of the article. I've been a bit busy. I also sometimes get distracted by other articles and discussions. Second, I'm glad you like the re-worded sentence. I just looked at it again and thought maybe it could be smoothed out a bit (nearly the same, but cutting out a few words or syllables):

• Argentina's vast size and its considerable range in altitude make for a climate encompassing a wide range of types and a biome of great variety.

Which do you prefer? Also, I'd like to be sure that the title phrase, "climate of Argentina" does not have to appear somewhere in that sentence. If it does, I'll have to re-think it. I will look into that (in WP:LEAD) in a few minutes, or you can. Corinne (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just read MOS:INTRO, and it says that while it is a good idea to include the title in the first sentence, it is not required. Rothorpe What do you think? Do you like the sentence as it is now, or do you prefer one of my two alternates, above? Corinne (talk) 00:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. I'd go further: "Argentina's vast size and considerable variation of altitude make for a wide range of climate types and a very diverse biome." Rothorpe (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. "Variation of altitude" or "variation in altitude"? I'm even wondering whether "considerable" isn't too weak of a word. Perhaps "tremendous", "extreme", or "significant"? Corinne (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 'in altitude', of course. No idea whether 'considerable' is considerable enough, though. Rothorpe (talk) 01:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer a slight modification to it. I would suggest changing it to Argentina's vast size and considerable variation in altitude make for a wide range of climate types and biomes. "Significant" sounds a bit odd for saying it has variation in altitude. I think "considerable" or "tremendous" would be the 2 best words as "extreme" might be a bit biased. Ssbbplayer (talk) 03:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding which word to use, I think "considerable" is all right. I think your version of the sentence is more concise, but I've been thinking that "biome" is not really an aspect of climate, and since the first sentence of an article should indicate the topic to be covered in the article, perhaps it shouldn't be mentioned there. The way it is now, "climate" and "biome" are given equal weight. The affect of climate on the biome can be touched upon later in the article, though. Corinne (talk) 14:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC) I've also been thinking about a way to add something to the beginning of the sentence to include the phrase "the climate of Argentina", or "the country's climate". Still thinking... Corinne (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about this?

• The climate of Argentina is a complex subject: the country's vast size and considerable variation in altitude make for a wide range of climate types.

– Corinne (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After some researching, I think you are right about it as the article does not mention a lot related to biomes. I do know that climate is a major factor in determining which biomes are present but after reading the article, it does feel that it is going a bit off topic. The new one mentions the complexity of the climate and sounds more complete than the old one; the old sentence without the term biome sounds a bit odd and incomplete. Ssbbplayer (talk) 15:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ssbbplayer I'm glad you like the new version. May I ask you, though, to let me make the edits until I have finished copy-editing? Corinne (talk) 18:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC) I have to ask you about two things. In the section Climate of Argentina#Mesopotamia, I see "Bernado de Irigoyen". However, there is a WP article Bernardo de Irigoyen. Isn't the town or region named after the man? Is it supposed to be "Bernado"? Second, I still don't understand why you use "can be" (etc.) with averages and means. Is it that the average or mean is referring to only a particular month, season or year, and two years later the average or mean could be higher or lower? Even if that is true, I think it would be better to use something like "is normally" or "is usually" or "normally averages" or "is usually/normally around/below/above, etc." "Can be", "can exceed" is awfully vague, but it's all right for exceptions to the norm. Corinne (talk) 19:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I was thinking that for those readers not familiar with Argentina's geography, it might help to include a small map of Argentina next to each section with the provinces discussed in that section highlighted. Of course, in a section in which you name a lot of provinces, this would probably not be helpful, but in a section in which you focus on one province, it might be very helpful. Corinne (talk) 19:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ssbbplayer, see User talk:Vsmith#Climate of Argentina and Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop#Climate of Argentina. Corinne (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The town Bernardo de Irigoyen refers specifically to the town Bernardo de Irigoyen, Misiones which actually happens to be the eastern most part of Argentina. The source (in Spanish) refers to it as "la localidad de Bernardo de Irigoyen, ubicada en el extremo centro-este de Misiones". I added can be as I couldn't come up with a better and concise word and I did not had the time for quality checking. In those cases, it refers to a normal value so the terms "is normally" or "is usually" or "normally averages" or "is usually/normally around/below/above, etc." should apply to anything related to averages or means, whether it is a value for a month, for a season or the yearly value. For extreme temperatures, most sources indicate a threshold value. Ssbbplayer (talk) 02:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. Thanks. Tomorrow I will read through the article and change "can be", etc., to "is normally" or something like it, unless you want to do that. Or I can do it, and then when I'm finished you can read through and correct any that do not sound right. Would that be all right? Corinne (talk) 04:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. But I think you missed in my comment that you had "Bernado", and I was asking, shouldn't it be "Bernardo"? Do you see the difference? I guess it should be. I was just trying to be sure. Corinne (talk) 03:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is better than adding in footnotes. I can do that for some sections (particularly the Cuyo, Northwest, and Mesopotamia). The Pampas is a natural region and there is a map for it. I am quite unsure about Argentine Patagonia as I could not find any on Wikimedia. Ssbbplayer (talk) 02:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the Bernardo de Irigoyen problem, yes, it should be Bernardo; it was a typo.:) Ssbbplayer (talk) 04:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will change the "can be" to "is normally" as I do have the time to do it now. Ssbbplayer (talk) 04:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. That's fine. Since there may be quite a few instances of "can + verb", may I suggest that you try to vary the phrases that you use? Look at the example verbs/phrases I gave you, above, and use the best one for each instance. Sometimes "is normally", other times, "normally exceeds", or "is usually below", "is usually above", "usually exceeds", etc., so there is variety and the reader will not get bored by repetition. Corinne (talk) 04:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I finished changing the "can be" and its variants to better forms. I will check it tomorrow. Ssbbplayer (talk) 04:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the second paragraph in Climate of Argentina#Mesopotamia is the following sentence:

• Most of the precipitation during winter comes from frontal systems, particularly the Sudestada, which bring long periods of precipitation, cloudiness, cooler temperatures, and strong winds.

I'm just wondering if it would be correct if we substitute "rain" for "precipitation", so it would read:

• which bring long periods of rain.

If it is not correct, because it sometimes (rarely?) snows, you could add:

• which bring long periods of rain (rarely snow). Corinne (talk) 21:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After checking the sources, rain would be a fine substitution as one of the sources mention "lluvia" for Entre Rios province. Snowfall is extremely rare compared to the Pampas which can receive snow every couple of years. Ssbbplayer (talk) 02:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your recent edits removing "According to scientists". I agree that it's better without that. I wouldn't say the phrase is a weasel word; it's just unnecessary because it's kind of vague. If, on the other hand, you wanted name the scientists or organization with which they are connected, it would make sense to use the phrase. I came here to ask you about two captions.

1) I didn't see any connection between the image of Iguazú Falls and the material in the section it is next to. If it's there, I apologize; I don't remember seeing it. Perhaps something could be added to the caption to indicate a bit of a connection.

2) The caption of the maximum temperatures reached during the December 2013: I don't understand the necessity for the word "Absolute" before "maximum temperature". I think the only time you need that word is (a) for emphasis (which I don't think is needed in a caption), or (b) to distinguish between "relative" and "absolute" (and I don't think you need to do that here, do you?). Corinne (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I will add in a caption which relates it to the typical fauna in Mesopotamia for Iguazú Falls. For #2) I think due to the confusion for some editors, perhaps "highest maximum temperature" would seem better. It is not a record high. Ssbbplayer (talk) 16:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "during the December 2013 heat wave" makes it clear it is not necessarily a record high temperature. We would normally just say, "High temperatures reached during the December 2013 heat wave". You don't need the word "maximum". Corinne (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For #1) I felt that the Iguazú Falls was a rather poor image. I changed it to another one which shows the flora in Misiones province which shows how the high temperatures and precipitation enable it to support jungles (the word "selva" in Spanish means jungle). For 2), I decided to remove absolute and just put what you suggested. Ssbbplayer (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the section Climate of Argentina#Northwest is the following paragraph:

• Temperatures in northwest Argentina vary by altitude. The temperate valleys have a temperate climate, with mild summers and dry and cool winters with regular frosts. In the Quebrada de Humahuaca valley, mean annual temperatures range from 12.0 to 14.1 °C (53.6 to 57.4 °F), depending on altitude. In the Calchaquí Valleys in Salta province, the climate is temperate and arid with large thermal amplitudes, long summers, and a long frost-free period. In the valleys in the south in La Rioja and Catamarca provinces and the southwest parts of Santiago del Estero Province, which is part of the arid Chaco ecoregion, the climate is mild year-long in terms of temperature. Temperatures during the summer are very high, with a mean temperature of 26 °C (78.8 °F) in January. Winters in the valleys of La Rioja and Catamarca provinces along with southwest Santiago del Estero province are mild, with a mean temperature of 12 °C (53.6 °F). Cold fronts from the south bringing cold Antarctic air can cause severe frosts in the valleys of La Rioja and Catamarca provinces. In contrast, the Zonda wind, which occurs more often during the winter months, can raise temperatures up to 35 °C (95.0 °F) with strong gusts, sometimes causing crop damage. Temperatures in the Puna region are much colder, with a mean annual temperature of less than 10 °C (50.0 °F) owing to the high altitude. The Puna region is characterized by being cold with a large diurnal range but sunny throughout the year.

1) I think there is some repetition here. I've highlighted two sentences in italics for you to see. First you say "the climate is mild year-longround in terms of temperature". Then you say "Winters...are mild". (It should be "year-round", not "year-long".) Winter is part of the year, so this is repetitive.

2) First you say "the climate is mild year-longround in terms of temperature". Then, in the very next sentence you say, "Temperatures during the summer are very high". Very high temperatures is not mild.

Do you want to revise this part? Or do you want to explain here what you want it to say, and let me revise it? Go ahead and work on it if you want to. Corinne (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For number 2, definitely revise it after seeing that others might misinterpret this which is not good. I was surprised that since the source is reliable and this was taken directly from the source. Given it confuses some readers, change it to "year round". The same goes for number 1. Ssbbplayer (talk) 04:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ssbbplayer "Year-long" is used as an adjective, as in "The region experienced a year-long drought" or "a ten-year-long drought". But that was not the main thing that needed working on. Please re-read my two statements (1 and 2) just above. (1) You need to remove some repetition, and (2) You've got a contradiction that needs fixing. Corinne (talk) 01:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. In this sentence, "year round" is an adverb:

• With the exception of Misiones Province, which receives abundant precipitation year-round, precipitation is slightly higher in the summer than in the winter and generally decreases from east to west and from north to south. – Corinne (talk) 03:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Answer:This one was difficult for me but from what I understand, it means that precipitation in Misiones province is evenly distributed throughout the year. Ssbbplayer (talk) 03:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I checked the sources and found it was inaccurate. It did not mentioned Misiones province, but it mentioned its provincial capital. I removed it as it is more accurate and sounds more clearer. Ssbbplayer (talk) 03:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the second-to-last paragraph in Climate of Argentina#Climate change is the following sentence:

• In the northern and central regions, precipitation is predicted to increase while in much of central–western Argentina and Patagonia, precipitation is predicted to decrease.

To someone not familiar with the geography of Argentina, this sentence could be confusing. In the first half of the sentence, you say, "In the northern and central regions, precipitation is predicted to increase". In the second half of the sentence, you say, "in much of central–western Argentina and Patagonia, precipitation is predicted to decrease". It's not entirely clear how "central–western" Argentina and "central" regions are not one and the same, or at least overlapping, creating a kind of contradiction: "central" Argentina is predicted to increase but "central-western" is predicted to decrease. Is there a way you could make the distinction between "central regions" and "central-western Argentina" a little clearer, perhaps by using a different phrase for the second one?

Answer I did made a mistake in when I added. I realized it. Central-western Argentina would simply be the Cuyo region while central Argentina would refer to the Pampas as one is located in the west and the other is definitely in the east. This would be the most correct form as I know that precipitation has increased in the Pampas (as shown by occasional floods that made headlines). Ssbbplayer (talk) 03:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the discussion of retreating glaciers and the effect on areas that depend upon the glaciers continuing to exist, in the second paragraph in Climate of Argentina#Climate change, I added "glacier meltwater" instead of "it" (since "it" was not clear). If that's not correct, you'll need to correct it. Corinne (talk) 23:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Answer:Yes. This is correct. Glacier meltwater is accurate. Ssbbplayer (talk) 03:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have changed <s>...<s> above to <s>...</s> to keep the remainder of this page from being struck out. YBG (talk) 03:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you delete the article about field hockey? this sport is also important in Argentina and one of the most successfull, the National Team won lot of titles, it isn't enough for you?. Don't be so subjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonina666444 (talk • contribs) 06:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't deleted it. I moved the contents to the main page on Sport in Argentina as the one on Argentina should be a summary and I mentioned that in my edits. I did not know that; I just wanted to ensure the article is summarized as it is too large which has been mentioned in the talk page many times. You can add it back but it has to be in a prose as a list is discouraged. Actually someone added back the other sports that I removed as a prose. I am okay with that; the prose is the main concern. Ssbbplayer (talk) 22:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have changed <s>...<s> above to <s>...</s> to keep the remainder of this page from being struck out.  YBG (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Magallanes y la Antártica Chilena Region may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Castor y Polux Ltda |language = Spanish}}</ref> Owing to its proximity to 60^oS (a zone characterized by [[low pressure]] systems and [[Extratropical cyclone|subpolar cyclones]],

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Climate of Buenos Aires, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pampero. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Climatic regions of Argentina you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You no doubt know South America better than I do. I created the new article Bosques Petrificados de Jaramillo National Park to fill a red link in the template at the bottom of the article on San Guillermo National Park. Is this park another name for the Petrified Forest (Sarmiento)? I believe they are different as the co-ordinates are not the same and the species of tree seem to differ. What do you think? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I checked these 2. They are different not only in the coordinates (the Bosques Petrificados de Jaramillo National Park is located further south in Santa Cruz Province, the Petrified Forest (Sarmiento) more north) but also the jurisdiction. The national park is under the federal government based on Law 26,825 but the Petrified Forest for Sarmiento is under provincial control (specifically Chubut Province). The answer is that no, this park is not another name for Petrified Forest (Sarmiento). Ssbbplayer (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have altered the list in the article for Petrified wood to include both forests. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Climatic regions of Argentina you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Climatic regions of Argentina for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Climatic regions of Argentina at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 09:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of insidious introduction of incremental falsity into many articles (on climatological data) was really very bad. Consider warning them, not just reverting, and gping to WP:AIV. They are destroying lots of articles. Keep up the good work! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I did actually did this to one IP who kept doing it despite repeated warnings. I normally would only do this if it is repetitive (they reverted my edits more than 3 times). Ssbbplayer (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to thank you for indirectly helping me. If I hadn't tripped over the weatherbox you did for Fogo Island and wondered how exactly you got that info when that was not listen on Environment Canada's public facing climate normals page, I would have never found that FTP they have with all of the Canadian climate data. I have no idea how you found that in the first place, but it's a treasure trove I am just starting to dig into. While my initial focus was on my ongoing weatherbox collection project, this new discovery may change things.

Since it seems like climate stuff is your specialty, you may already have something to take care of this, but I made a KML file for Google Maps and Google Earth out of the stations listed on that FTP server. I've included every station that reported Jan Hi/Lo, Jul Hi/Lo, Mean total, Total precip, rain, and snowfall. A more detailed filtering could probably have filtered for stations that returned all 13 time periods, but I don't know how to automate that and it already took a day to start with and it serves my purposes fine. At the very least it is a good starting point. It might be of future use to you, so I'll link it here.

KML File: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-gx34J0SQ-xWS0zX2RUM1gtOFk/view?usp=sharing

Thanks for your work.

Synon0 (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in late 2013, Environment Canada used to put an important notice that the 1981–2010 normals were available for download via FTP as shown in this archived web page where you had to click on it. Archived page. Although they made it available in July, it was not until September that they formatted it in xlsx; before they formatted it in a file that I could not open. To access the FTP, the link is this FTP link, which was the one Environment Canada put on their website for a while. Just choose the province you want and then save the excel files it to your computer. If you open it, it will not work; I tried it many times. This was how I found most of the info before the more accessible webpage format came out in early 2014. The FTP has more detailed climate data, including certain elements not found such as sunshine though the amount of years recorded is short and more stations. Ssbbplayer (talk) 01:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Climate of Argentina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tornados. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Climate of Argentina you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 18:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	I loved your helpful attitude and eagerness to improve articles. Do go on with your awesome efforts, you deserve this! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 03:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Climate of Argentina you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Climate of Argentina for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 06:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Ssbbplayer.

Per WP:APPNOTE, it's appropriate to notify people when there is a talk page discussion about an area where they've edited. You made an edit here that concerns a talk page discussion on Talk:Territorial disputes in the South China Sea.

Thank you for your contributions. -- Callinus (talk) 10:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot thank you enough for your contributions on the Dilek Peninsula-Büyük Menderes Delta National Park article and that very helpful checklist on the talk page, I was actually about to finally sit down and make those edits myself but it seems you've made most of them already! Here's the least I can do for all that hard work, and by the end of my day I should be able to renominate this for GA. Coderenius (☎) 00:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello mate! Coderenius here, first off I'd like to thank you again for your fixes to the Dilek Peninsula-Büyük Menderes Delta National Park article, it's really appreciated. I've completed the tasks on the to-do list and nominated the article for WP:GA again, so you can respond to any comments in the review as you may so wish. I've noticed that you generally make climate and weather information-related edits, so if it isn't too much to ask perhaps you can take a look at the Özdere article, present your thoughts on it, and check to make sure the climate information is correct, and perhaps improve it (such as giving the sea temp box colors, etc.). I should also be nominating that for GA soon, so my only request is for you to keep an eye on this GA nom yourself, as you've helped out so much on it and you deserve to represent it. I welcome you to respond to any tasks that come up in this next review. Cheers, my friend, Coderenius (☎) 19:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Coderenius: Been busy but I did checked the weather data. I could not find a more reliable source for it from WMO, NOAA nor the Turkish State Meteorological Service for Özdere. The sunshine data definitely has to go because the world climate guide explicitly stated that it is from weather2travel.com. Weather2travel.com is not a reliable source; they inflate sunshine values for Istanbul and Turkey in general (I am presuming due to tourism) (see this edit and compare this to the real ones). In monthly terms, the official source is around 2,200 hours but weather2travel gives it 2,807 hours, which is much larger, even if the 2,200 hours are corrected to include sunrise and sunset (about 200-300 hours more). For sea temperatures, not really need in my opinion. Some featured articles such as Istanbul do not have it, particularly if it is from a low quality source such as weather2travel. Other than that, the values are correct. Ssbbplayer (talk) 04:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 March 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Climatic regions of Argentina, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Pampas, one of the main climatic regions of Argentina, witness some of the most intense thunderstorms in the world? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Climatic regions of Argentina. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your help on Dilek Peninsula-Büyük Menderes Delta National Park, it's now a good article thanks to you! Cheers! Coderenius (☎) 02:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Coderenius: No problem. It's good when people praise me for my efforts in improving the articles. All the best! Ssbbplayer (talk) 03:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted to the last version before all this started and protected the page for an hour. You are both over 3RR and I don't want to block anyone. This appears to be a content dispute and must be resolved at Talk:Dubrovnik. Please, do not edit that part of the article until you have consensus, okay? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Anna Frodesiak: I put up a new topic for discussion on Talk:Dubrovnik#Climate_data. Ssbbplayer (talk) 04:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You did indeed, and thank you. :) The IP must discuss things there and get consensus to revert. What I need from you is a promise not to revert again if I unprotect. The IP will then have a choice to engage at talk or revert. If he reverts, I will semi-protect the article for a while. (There is no point in blocking him because he has a dynamic IP.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		Thank you so much for your help on the Phoenix, Arizona article. That last bit put it over into the GA quality status. Won't forget it. Onel5969 TT me 04:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		Awarded jointly to User:Cerevisae, User:Molecule Extraction and User:Ssbbplayer for their dedicated volunteering and wonderful collaboration to make Johor Bahru a GA in the absence of its nominator. This is something I have never seen before. Congrats! Sainsf <^>Feel at home 09:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and thanks to all of the editors involved in the GA review process. Ssbbplayer (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your efforts here, and especially for explaining to me such a lot of things on climate and geography. I love this field! I am sure Climatic regions of Argentina and Climate of Argentina will be huge successes. Cheers! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 04:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to award you this:

content climate

Thank you for your amazing job at improving the coverage is Wikipedia on climate related topics despite difficulties. Moreover, you are quite polite and collaborative. We are proud to have you here. Indeed, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 06:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the awards. I am grateful in having my efforts being recognized despite working on a topic that is difficult. Ssbbplayer (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Four years ago, you were recipient no. 1365 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Climate of Buenos Aires you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 07:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 26 April 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Climate of Argentina, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that both the highest and lowest temperatures in South America were recorded in Argentina? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Climate of Argentina. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Climate of Argentina), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Climate of Buenos Aires you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Climate of Buenos Aires for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 09:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 8 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Climate of Buenos Aires, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that snowfall in Buenos Aires is rare, being observed only three times since the start of meteorological observations in 1906? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Climate of Buenos Aires. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Climate of Buenos Aires), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for letting me know. I don't think I'm going to go near US cities weatherboxes but Canadian city EC climate data has just the 6am and 3pm humidity measurement so it's simple. I'm going to go through Canadian cities and synchronize the weatherboxes to have all 3pm data showing and have it labeled so that people know what they're looking at without having to go into the source to figure it out. As it is right now Canadian cities are mixed between 6am and 3pm data making for some incorrect comparisons. Cheers. Air.light (talk) 04:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Air.light: That's good. I have not touched Canadian city climate data in a while; the same said for US cities weatherboxes (a lot of impressive effort from the editors that did it). The 3 pm data, after looking at it in detail seems more realistic than the morning values. Cheers. Ssbbplayer (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on the coverage of major cities on Vicipaedia. I wanted to mention this to you because I realise I am nearly always using your work as basis for a short climate section. You set it out so clearly that it is not difficult to extract some crucial points and present them in a paragraph in Latin. I'm indicating in a footnote that en:wiki is the immediate source, and that references to reliable external sources will be found there. If you want to glance at what I'm doing, you'll find examples at la:Pune, la:Surat, la:Amedebatum, la:Praga, la:Matritum, la:Monacum, la:Sydneium, la:Havana ... and more each day. Thank you. Andrew Dalby 13:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ssbbplayer:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Climatic regions of Argentina has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

You will notice that I archived one of the article’s citations (#1). I suggest that you archive the rest of the article’s URLs as time allows. This ensures that the article's references are available "forever" and that it doesn’t develop “dead links” over time. The site I use is https://archive.org/web/. Simply copy the URL in the citation and paste it in the “Save Page Now” box on the archive.org site and click "Save". This creates a copy of the original page and provides you with a new URL to add to the original citation. If you look at the URL I've archived you'll see the syntax. You add the new URL to the end of the original citation like this: |archiveurl=http etc|archivedate=22 June 2016}}. Not all websites allow archiving - CBS TV news and the NY Times are two I've come across, so there's not much you can do about that unless there is an alternate citation you could use.

Kind regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should I take your recent post on the talk page to indicate you're posting another notice on WP:ANI? If so by when? Asking mainly to avoid duplicating effort. Chris Hallquist (talk) 03:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I modified my comments a bit since I strike out an older comment on that, indicating that it is not closed yet. Ssbbplayer (talk) 03:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of weather records, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seno. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you go about your good work on Thai climate data, let me make a suggestion. Many Thai provinces and provincial government seats share the same name. E.g., "Krabi Province" and "Krabi" town. The Thai meteorological data is typically taken in the town. Readings from a particular station cannot be applied to the provinces as a whole. Thus it makes no sense (to me) to have climate data for provinces, only for specific towns. The reason is obvious: some provinces are quite large and have various differing micro-climates. I suggest, therefore, that climate info not be listed on provincial articles, only on city articles, and certainly not the same data for both city and province as is sometimes the case now. I hope you agree as I have sometimes stripped climate data from provincial articles. Seligne (talk) 04:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It took me a while to find the link to the data. I agree. It does not make sense to use the climate data of a certain town as being representative of the climate of the province due to the same reasons that you mentioned above. The climate data for these provinces should be removed with the exception of Phuket Province since it corresponds to an island and has weather stations not located within the city of Phuket. Ssbbplayer (talk) 13:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great! You are doing a terrific job! Seligne (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For great work on Thailand climate data. Seligne (talk) 04:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Apologies for reverting you, Looking back at the diff the other editor had updated it not added it and it was infact you who had added it,
There's been alot of socks going to various articles adding these and I obviously thought that was the case here .... Had I known you actually added it in the first place I obviously wouldn't of removed it in the first place so my apologies for reverting you there,
Happy editing :), –Davey2010^Talk 13:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Davey2010: It is okay. Mistakes like these do happen. I understand how it can be difficult to watch a page when the climate box is changed frequently. Currently, it is correct after I did the checking of the numbers. I am guessing that the data should not be changed until either a new record is broken (with a reliable source) or the new 1991–2020 data comes out. I did edited the talk page of Tallinn to explain in further depth about why I kept the weather box. Ssbbplayer (talk) 14:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The updating isn't a problem :), I just saw the box, Checked the history, and ended up removing on the wrong diff so don't worry you've not done a thing wrong, My best advice I can give is simply ignore today and imagine it never happened :), Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 14:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your NOAA edit on Geneina. I am asking if you used any tools or typed it manually. Twillisjr (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since the addition of the climate table would take a long time to type it in manually, I copied and pasted a climate table from another location in Sudan (e.g. Port Sudan) onto the Geneina page and changed it based on the source. It is much faster. Also, you can look at the Template:Weather Box page which lists all of the parameters (e.g Precipitation, temperature, rainfall, sunshine). Ssbbplayer (talk) 02:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for the comment and I understand your opinion that 1.0mm threshold makes misleading the data. But, 0.0mm measurement can be distorted as well when the dewdrops are accumulating. So it would be better to decide 0.5mm. Weathertable (talk) 03:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the 0.5 mm is a better threshold due to that possibility and I would agree with using the 0.5 mm threshold. Ssbbplayer (talk) 17:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just want you to know that for most color blind people (8% of males and 0.5% of females of Northern European descent) the green precipitation/snow/rain color scheme is virtually impossible to see up until about 3 inches. So it IS fixing the color, as the blue doesn't have the same issue.Rubberduck23 (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I generally dislike the current blue colour scheme since it makes rainfall from 0 to 3 inches (about 0-90 mm) too dark and then increase by a smaller gradient. At values above 300mm, they all look the same and does not make sense for it to be black compared to dark green. The gradient should be more even instead of being abrupt from 0-90 mm and then gradual from 100-300 mm which the green does it well in most cases. Another major issue is that it leads to blending with blue temperature colours, precipitation/rainy/snowy days and humidity and this makes it difficult to read. Regarding the colour blind issue and the idea that it is impossible to see up until about 75 mm, I used this website to view the weather boxes from a colour blind person's perspective to test this for Lihue, Hawaii as an example. The colours do appear below 75 mm in all 3 forms and are distinguishable. Blending of blue colours does occur in the filters as well. Ssbbplayer (talk) 04:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That website is not accurate. I am color blind, I know what the reality is. The greens are too similar at low values, and the blues show extreme minimals well with a good range of moderation for temperate climates. When I started here, you reverted all of my first edits even though they were periphery. You explicitly went to my contributions and reverted them all in an attempt to bully me. Why do you insist on starting edit wars with people?Rubberduck23 (talk) 04:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The articles where I did reverted were edited by me a couple of years ago and I do check on them from time to time to see any changes in the climate table. For example in Cape Hatteras, I edited the article back in 2012 and 2015. The same thing for Aktobe and Lihue. If I explicitly went to your contributions, I would had reverted more. The reverts that I did and your discussion about it are in line with WP:BRD. About the claim "Why do you insist on starting edit wars with people?", this is straying from the topic and has been an exception for me; they rarely occur. As well, edit wars are a two way problem. Solely accusing another of starting an edit war is not going to help resolve the situation. Ssbbplayer (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about Alice Springs and Dampier? Mhmmm, I don't think so. You reverted every single of my first edits.Rubberduck23 (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not all, I did not touch Fort Yukon or Mende, Lozère based on your editing history. Ssbbplayer (talk) 15:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ssbbplayer. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent climate updates! Glad to see your name pop-up on my Watchlist. Hope you're doing well! ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 16:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources on the "weather records page". Why do you delete the primary sources and replace them with other? You can put all possible sources to an article, for example for the one from Montoro Vega Armijo, you could have added the El Pais article next to the AEMET daily report and the Kachelmann page (the Kachelmann one I believe expires after two years). What do you think? I appreciate you deleted the Bullhead City part, there was something dubious there. NOOA has a weather station in the City (probably not too far from the said airport) whose daily archive stops at July 13th. Dextercioby (talk) 13:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced them with secondary sources since it makes it easier for readers to verify that the record is the highest in the country. I removed the older AEMET source since the record is beaten, making the source outdated. Primary sources are usually not the best since it just shows raw data. If I was not an expert nor knowledgeable in the country's climate, I cannot really tell if the reading is the highest. All I see would be a bunch of numbers. The problem is that if I begin to interpet raw data as the one that you placed in, it would be Original research, which is strongly discouraged. That is since the Kachelmann one only shows a climate map. It does not have info that explicitly says if the reading is the highest. Normally, if there is one source that sufficiently provides good info, it is not necessary to use a second one as it would be WP:citation overkill. It is unnecessary to mass add citations when only one is needed. For the NOAA thing, I did try to do a google search but I could not find any secondary sources or news reports to validate that reading since a reading like that requires further investigation. No one knows if that reading is reliable or not. That is why I removed it. Ssbbplayer (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada will soon be reaching its first-anniversary. Please consider submitting any Canada-related articles you have created or improved since November 2016. Please try to ensure that all entries are sourced with formatted citations and no unsourced claims.

You may submit articles using this link for convenience. Thank-you, and please spread the word to those you know who might be interested in joining this effort to improve the quality of Canada-related articles. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ssbbplayer. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Do you have sources about newer climate data for Rome (1981-2010 or 2000-)? I find only for Rome-Ciampino (#16239, from 2000), but incomplete. And also I can not find data for Rome-Fiumicino (#16242) or eventually, for Roma-Urbe (#16235). At present, Wikipedia based on old/outdated data from 1971–2000. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 21:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Subtropical-man: The only sources I could find for Rome (1981–2010) are Atlante Italiano del Clima e dei Cambiamenti Climatici-Tablelle climatiche 1981-2010 per aree geografiche, page 250 of source also use this same source, but only the table if the first source takes too long to load and from Meteo Climat. The first one is mainly in Italian but the data is quite limited, only showing average high, average low, and mean monthly precipitation. The Meteo climat source (only in French) is more comprehensive and a really great source (has up to date temperature records, just click on the table for Rome to view records). The only downside is that the page takes a while to load (I have seen it been used a lot on Italian Wikipedia for the climatology of many Italian cities). Unfortunately, both sources I found only had data for one Rome station. The meteo climat one is for Rome Ciampino based on altitude and coordinates ([10]). Ssbbplayer (talk) 15:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe in the near future, Servizio Meteorologico show more recent and more detailed data. Thank you for your time :) Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 18:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kangaroo caught seems very experienced for someone who just started a week ago ... Frietjes (talk) 15:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Frietjes: Yes. This user looks unusually experienced for someone who just started a week ago. It is mostly like another user's account (need to confirm it though). I checked the user's editing history, it seems similar to the blocked accounts in that this user has a tendency to create multiple templates that are confusing and redundant (see the user's edit history where he/she edits a bunch of obscure templates that really do not serve a purpose other than to make it so complex that if an error occurs, it's hard to change them), has edited many Philippine related articles (particularly locations in Cebu), and has similar editing summaries (e.g "removed stacked bar demographic; improved graphic; add porohanon dialect; add airport news", "used more wikidata; corrections", "improved cites with archive"). Ssbbplayer (talk) 03:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

=

Regarding your edit summary on this edit, to wit, a source [that] requires manual calculations ... is original research, I call your attention to WP:CALC, which states:

Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are some examples of routine calculations. See also Category:Conversion templates.

All of this notwithstanding, I agree with you that a source that requires no calculation is to be preferred. Thanks, and happy editing! YBG (talk) 02:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ssbbplayer. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Nice find about the official data from the Danish Meteorological Institute 1981-2010 period! Weathertable (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada is approaching its third-anniversary. Please consider submitting any Canada-related articles you have created or improved since November 2016. Please try to ensure that all entries are sourced with formatted citations and have no unsourced claims.

You may use the above button to submit entries, or bookmark this link for convenience. For more information, please see WP:CAN10K. Thank-you, and please spread the word to those you know who might be interested in joining this effort to improve the quality of Canada-related articles. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sadko: I am not engaged in any disruptive editing. In my edits to Leskovac, I am simply reverting the IPs edits since the numbers did not match the source being provided. This IP keeps vandalising figures that do not match what the source says. Please do not make blanket accusations like this. Ssbbplayer (talk) 01:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bro change belgavi , other languages from urdu to hindi as it is spreading misinformation Abhinavvvv (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Abhinavvvv: I am not an expert on languages in India but according to this source, Marathi along with Kannada is a recognized language but not Urdu. I made the changes with this edit. Ssbbplayer (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!! Abhinavvvv (talk) 03:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look. Seems like this guy wouldn't listen to logic and sources. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk:. I agree. The user's argument is more based on emotions (e.g. If feel that X is Y, therefore, X is Y) based on [11] and [12]. Ssbbplayer (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why admins are not protecting it. This is blatant vandalism. I've filed for page protection twice. Yesterday it got denied. Today I filed it again. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering if this could be raised up in Wikiproject India. I am thinking that many articles related to India are known to be vandalized quite a lot compared to other countries so I am thinking maybe if there is a way to reduce the risk of vandalism. I wonder if making many Indian articles WP:PCPP whereby edits are more scrutinised would be more realistic (e.g. Darjeeling). For example, many climatological data or demographics info tends to be quite vandalised if it goes undetected and the Darjeeling page has definitely reduced a lot of vandalism or massive unsourced changes. Ssbbplayer (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I want to nominate Jamshedpur for good article. How to do it? - Abdullah Ahsan Mumtaz 8:07, 02 - 02 - 2021 (TCU)

You have to look at WP:GA and esepcially look at the criteria for an article to be Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Ssbbplayer (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Minor barnstar
	Keep up with good work. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Regarding your removal of the min average and max average on the HK weatherbox, HKO does indeed publish this info and yes it is manually calculated, but I'm not sure how that would undermine the veracity of the data: [13]. Koopatrev (talk; contrib) 22:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Koopatrev: Hi. I was unsure about how to calculate the min and max average so I removed it in the process when updating it to the 1991-2020 data to ensure data consistency. If you could re add it in with the newer 1991-2020 data; that would be most welcome! Thanks. Ssbbplayer (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You reversed my edit so I want to say you are more experienced than me. I've got no experience in front of you but I want to ask couple of things from you regarding the above mentioned subject. Does it really matter that the reading is official or not?Many of the readings recorded in the list of temperature extremes may not even be official. They may not be recorded with weather stations or not even with satellite stations etc. May be they were recorded with thermometers and are "considered" official but are actually not. We need weather stations or other such stuff for measuring atm and humidity level and also temperatures etc but temperatures can also be measured only with the help of thermometers. This shouldn't be the parameter that a temperature reading is considered official only measured with weather stations. By ẞ35à. ẞ35à (talk) 09:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tallinn's extremes. These extremes a r e from an earlier period than only 1991-2020, years 1987, 1940, 84, etc, you can see. If you look at this link carefully, you will see it. This is the source: http://www.ilmateenistus.ee/kliima/rekordid/ohutemperatuur/ Do you really think your random Russian website is more reliable than Estonian national weather service's website? No. No one, no any russian website has a better overview of Tallinn's climate than the Estonian national weather service itself. So, could you finally stop undoing my edits?

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I did not know that webpage actually exists. I will not rever your edits Thank you so much for showing me that webpage. Ssbbplayer (talk) 15:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your point on the precipitation pattern of Whitehorse is well taken, but the Köppen climate classification system makes no distinction as to what half of the year receives more precipitation. If the driest high-sun month receives less than one-third as much precipitation as the wettest low-sun month, the second letter is an s and not an f (if this is true and the driest low-sun month also receives less than one-tenth as much precipitation as the wettest high-sun month, f is the second letter unless the place's climate meets the criteria for designation as a B [dry] climate).

Since I have no desire to start an "edit war" over this, I have not reversed your change.

@TOttenville8: Hi there. The koppen criteria can be quite confusing and can lead to minor disputes. I will try my best clarify the ratioanle that Whitehorse has a Dfc climate and not a Dsc climate. The Peel et al paper is the best reference used to help readers understand how the koppen climate classification criteria so I will pull out some quotes from the paper:

The paper defines summer as the warmer six month period of AMJJAS and winter as the cooler six month period of ONDJFM in the northern hemisphere which are reversed in the southern hemisphere.

There are cases where the climate can satisfy both the s and w criteria. Fortunately, the authors of the paper clarifies that in the following quote below using Herberton Post Office, Australia as an example. I have quoted the authors' comments

Following the Koppen-Geiger criteria in Table 1, summer is the period ONDJFM and over 70% of the mean annual precipitation falls during summer. Since the mean annual precipitation (1146 mm) is larger than the B climate type precipitation threshold of 678 mm (10 * (2 * 19.9 + 28)) (see Table 1) the station is not a B climate. With the coldest monthly temperature 15.5◦C, the station is not an A climate, but does satisfy the criteria for a C climate.

When the second letter is allocated, the driest summer month is 25.3 mm, which is below 40 mm and is less than one third of the wettest winter month (86.0 mm), so the station satisfies a Cs climate type. However, the driest winter month (16.5 mm) is less than one tenth of the wettest summer month (238.4 mm), so this station also satisfies the Cw climate type. Considering that over 70% of the precipitation falls during summer a classification of Cw is appropriate, while a classification of Cs is not.

When a location satisfied both Cs and Cw criteria, the precipitation for the six months containing summer and the six months containing winter were compared, with Cw assigned if the summer precipitation was greater than the winter precipitation. This additional rule was also applied to locations that satisfied both the Ds and Dw climate criteria as well.
— Peel et al, Updated world map of the Koppen-Geiger climate classification

In the case of Whitehorse, it meets the 's' criteria since April precipitation (P_sdry) of 7.0 mm is less than one third of that in October (P_wwet) of 23.2 mm. However, the driest winter month of March of 10.3 mm is less than 1/10th of the wettest summer month, July (38.1), meaning it meets the f criteria (no dry months) as well. When comparing summer and winter precipitation patterns in a similar fashion to how Peel et al compared for Herberton, in this case, Whitehorse would be Dfc since in summer months (AMJJAS) (7+16.3+32.4+38.1+35.8+33.3=162.9 mm) have more than in the winter months ONDJFM (23.2+20.1+16.3+17.8+10.3=99.5). Had whitehorse had a drier summer precipitation than winter, the dsc climate would best describe it. Ssbbplayer (talk) 23:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A similar "controversy" applies to Mazatlán, which has a tropical savanna climate, with May as its driest month, even though July, August, and September alone receive more than 75% of the Mazatlán's annual rainfall. But because the driest month is May, Mazatlán's climate is As, not Aw. And Whitehorse's driest winter month would have to be 3.8 mm or less for it to be less than 1/10th of the wettest summer month (38.1 mm). Therefore, Whitehorse's climate is Dsc beyond the merest statistical shadow of a doubt.

That's why the precipitation pattern as a whole takes precedent (either summer or winter has more rainfall). To add to that, Mazatlan would be Aw as well since the driest month in winter, March is less than 1/10th of that in August. Since more than 75% of rainfall falls in summer, therefore, it has an Aw classification, following what Peet et al did. It doesn't make sense for it to be As and it would be counterintitutive and confusing to readers. This is what the Peel paper clearly defines; we can't just blindly look at one specific month; need to look at the entire pattern. Whitehorse would be dfc on the same logic; to say it is dsc by claiming "merest statistical shadow of a doubt" is quite a narrow view and not accounting for the entire precipitation pattern. Ssbbplayer (talk) 01:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The percentage rule does not apply since Mazatlán does not have a B climate - and the <1/10th rule does not apply to A climates, which are Af if every month has >60 mm of rainfall, and if that is not the case, the climate is Am if the driest month has <60 mm of rainfall but more than 100-r/25 (r standing for the amount of rainfall received in the driest month, making the climate always Am if the mean annual precipitation is 2500 mm or more, even if the driest month averages no precipitation at all). Otherwise it is Aw if the driest month is in the low-sun season, or As if the driest month is in the high-sun season.

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Darjeeling for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 06:34, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore this, it was an accidental duplicate

Hi there,

I see you have reverted my edits on two articles.

Can I ask why you think my sources are not good and by what metric?

The Time and Date source uses data from customweather.com, a company which according to their website provides weather and climate data to a large clients such as JPMorgan & Chase and Bloomberg, so this is empirically a good source in my opinion. In addition, Time and Date is the only 'good' climate source I have found that has dew point averages.

Weather Atlas is more obscure as on the website, there is no mention of the source of the data, so I am willing to accept that Weather Atlas may not be a 'good' source.

I suspect as though you may have lumped the bad and good source together and concluded that they are both bad by association, then reverted them, if this is the case I'd urge you to check the sources with more diligence in the future that you suspect are bad, before you make your conclusion as to whether they are 'good' or 'bad'.

On my talk page I ask that if someone has an issue with my edits, they discuss it with me.

In the interim I am going to revert the Time and Date derived data, as I see no reason as to why it should be removed, however, I will not be reverting the Weather Atlas derived data for the reasons I have mentioned.

Thanks

Hello- I saw your name in the edit history for the article on Pau, (French Pyrénées). From seeing your edit summaries there and then your userpage, I thought you might be a good person to pose a question. Some recent changes to the data in the climate table there seem to me not to be supported by the sources cited. But I could easily be missing something, as this is out of my area of experience. Would you have a minute to take a look? Thanks in advance. Eric ^talk 11:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Eric: Hi there. Thanks for bringing up your concern about the climate data. Being experienced with editing climate data on wikipedia, I took a look at the climate data for Pau mentioned on the wiki and the sources provided. For everything except for humidity, the main source is from Meteo France and I doubled checked and the data matches with the correct record lows. However, the reason that the record lows were changed because when I edited back in 2018 the Meteo France source at that time showed a July record low of 1.5 which was updated in 2022. It is merely the source updating the record lows either due to quality checking (I think that the 1.5 reading was dubious and that is why Meteo France changed it). Other than that, it's just the data on the climate table was not up to date and just had to be updated, which was done recently to reflect the updated source. Cheers. Ssbbplayer (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for looking into it and getting back to me! The thing that caught my eye was the lowering of the record high and the raising of the record lows, but it makes sense if it's reflecting corrections in the source. Eric ^talk 17:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ho Chi Minh have a temperature 37,6°C in 27/12/1998 OK Ileagae (talk) 13:16, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ileagae: I just realized that there is an updated version of the climate data of Vietnam with this link. I will double check the data as it looks like it is more recent and has a longer period of reference compared to the older source I edited back in 2018 for most Vietnam cities. Ssbbplayer (talk) 04:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source and URL are here, you can check[15] ALSTROEMERIA🌸Čijukas Kuvajamas 11:39, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese translated terms ALSTROEMERIA🌸Čijukas Kuvajamas 11:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese:平均气温

English:Daily mean

Chinese:平均最高气温

English:Average high

Chinese:平均最低气温

English:Average low ALSTROEMERIA🌸Čijukas Kuvajamas 11:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese:平均降水量

English:Average precipitation

Chinese:平均降水量>=0.1mm日数

English:Average precipitation days (>=0.1mm)

Chinese:平均相对湿度

English:Average relative humidity ALSTROEMERIA🌸Čijukas Kuvajamas 11:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese:平均日照时数

English:Mean monthly sunshine hours

Chinese:平均日照时数百分比

English:Percent possible sunshine

Chinese:平均降雪日数

English:Average snowy days ALSTROEMERIA🌸Čijukas Kuvajamas 11:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/wmo-climate-normals Ileagae (talk) 07:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ileagae: I saw them release it yesterday. Hopefully, more countries continue to either update it. Ssbbplayer (talk) 11:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://portal.inmet.gov.br/normais Only average values, no extreme value data. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 04:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you could start doing the mean maxima/minima in US weatherboxes Akamaikai (talk) 01:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]