Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities

Airports in infoboxes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Question: For a major city (like the primary city in a metro area), should the city's major airport be listed in the infobox? Seattle, Los Angeles, and New York City do this, while Atlanta, London and Paris do not, and this is currently being discussed at Las Vegas. A second question is whether it matters if the city's major airport is not in city limits. Seattle's major airport is not, and New York City lists two major airports that are and one that is not, and you could make an argument for adding other area airports to LA. Ego White Tray (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to the attention of the WikiProject. Note that {{Infobox settlement}} contains an example which includes the major airport, just to clarify that this is not a new concept. I do not think it matters if the airport is in city limits, as this is often the case for the primary airports serving a given city. Additional, non-primary yet still major airports perhaps should be listed as a secondary airport, as is the case with Dallas Love Field and Dallas.

If we agree adding airports is in general a good idea (and I think it is), I'd like to propose adding a field for airports to {{Infobox settlement}}. Implementation will require the assistance of a template editor or administrator. I guess we will get to specifics at a later time... Cheers — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

If you elect to go this way a lot of details need to be resolved. The title for the entry in the infobox is one. 'Airport' is not good since it is meaningless as to the purpose as pointed out above. The more correct is 'major airport serving the settlement' which is too long. Also does this then get used on all articles? Airports can be listed for settlements in multiple states since some are the major airports for parts of 4 or more states. That is potentially hundreds of settlements per airport! Is this for commercial flights or what? Also Wikipedia is not a travel guide so why is knowing which airport serves the settlement not related to becoming a travel guide? Also from Help:Infobox, consistently present a summary of some unifying aspect that the articles share and sometimes to improve navigation to other interrelated articles. I'm not convinced that the airport serving the area meets this. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Note. The examples of where airports exist in the infoboxes is not an indication of consensus or precedence. As was pointed out by the closer in an edit war administrative action, these were recently added by User:Msloewengart who was behind the edits that brought the discussion here and is now blocked so they will not be able to participate in this discussion for a while. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Totally agree with Vegaswikian for the reasons stated. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 23:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I currently offering my week oppose. I do generally like the idea, but I am not sure what the inclusion line is that differentiates an airport from other ports and major rail stations. Should Grand Central Terminal go in the info box? If not, what differentiates it from JFK Airport. Surly passengers arriving by plane can't be our cut off line. However, to Vegaswikian's concern about what airports to include, I think limiting it to International Airports might solve that problem. But other types of ports are also international, hence my week oppose. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 10:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

International airports are something else. In the US, many international airports don't have international flights. In Europe, I believe that virtually all airports have international flights. So as a decision criteria, that has more problems. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I move my position from weak to strong oppose. Vegaswikian is correct. I was applying Amera-centric conclusions here. What airports to include is a big issue. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 22:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose (Agree with above editors). The infobox is supposed to be a summary of a few easily digestible facts about the city to grab the reader's attention, not a summary of everything in the article.

Worse, a lot of cities have no airport. The airport is far outside city and sometimes county (or equivalent) limits. Their adherents don't want to admit this. So it's an opportunity for silly claims. We know who the mayor is and a few other salient facts. Let's not get into crazy land wars in what is supposed to be a simple summary in the info box. Student7 (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I now agree. Student7 makes a good argument, this data just seems too complicated and subject to debate for a section that's supposed to accessibly include indisputable facts about the subject. — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Notwithstanding what appears to be a general consensus here to refrain from adding airports willy-nilly to info boxes, User:Msloewengart is continuing to do so. I've reverted a couple of recent edits, and left a couple of messages on his / her Talk page, but without much effect. I don't have much stake in this one way or the other, but it does bug me when editors so plainly exhibit WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT syndrome. JohnInDC (talk) 02:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Seven days have past since the last opinion on the matter was made. I'm closing this discussion with the result of not including airports in infoboxes as that seems to be a clear consensus. Ample time was allowed for opposing parties to make their points. I have opted for formal closure since we have a lot of edits to undo, and a formally written out consensus should help justify removal of content (link here in the edit summary). Feel free to challenge the closure if you see fit. Thanks! — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Don't overlook Special:Contributions/68.191.43.129. JohnInDC (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I just discovered this discussion after seeing a link to it in one of MusikAnimal's edit summaries (good job providing that, thanks). The way that the blocked editor was adding the airport information was by adding the full names of the airports, followed by the airport codes. Lengthy airport names such as Novosibirsk Tolmachevo Airport, George Bush Intercontinental Airport and Ürümqi Diwopu International Airport are the norm, but if just the codes and link(s) were provided, for example as (URC/ZWWW) the information could be conveyed succinctly. It's more or less on a par with the time zone, postal codes, telephone dialling prefixes and vehicle registration codes that are typically included in infoboxes for cities. As for airports outside the boundaries of a city, that is very common. If reliable sources refer to an airport as serving the city, that should be enough for us to associate it with the city. —rybec 00:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence of "typically included" and "very common", because it appears to be the conclusion of the above discussion that this is not the norm, which is also my own editing experience. Your airport code suggestion also doesn't address several other issues brought up in the above discussion. Namely, why airports and not other ports of entry like train stations and sea ports? Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're asking me to show that airports outside the boundaries of their cities are commonplace, which is what I meant by "As for airports outside the boundaries of a city, that is very common." Although I chose them as examples of lengthy names, two of the examples I gave are also airports outside the boundaries of the cities they serve: Novosibirsk Tolmachevo Airport is in the town of Ob, not in Novosibirsk; Ürümqi Diwopu International Airport is in Diwopu township but not, it seems in Ürümqi. Only part of the Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport is in Atlanta; Orly Airport is not in Paris—further examples may easily be found.

The article on Novosibirsk has a telephone dialling code and several postal codes; the article on Houston has telephone dialling codes, a FIPS code and a GNIS feature ID (I didn't know that FIPS codes or GNIS feature IDs existed before seeing them in Wikipedia infoboxes). The article for Ürümqi has a telephone dialling code, a postal code, a license plate prefix and an ISO 3166-2 code. Further examples may easily be found.

The airport codes lend themselves to succinct presentation as a parameter followed by a value, and many readers will recognise them. If other modes of transport can be presented briefly and understandably, perhaps they could be included too. Although steamship travel isn't what it used to be, the Port of Tianjin and Port of Rotterdam are important to the economies of their respective cities. —rybec 08:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I guess the point is, as you rightly point out using airport names instead of codes is what people do, but my point is that listing airports is not the norm on city infoboxes. Pointing out WP:OTHERSTUFF on infoboxes doesn't negate the other points made in the above discussion that led to its closure. Like, if we include airports why not other ports of entry like Grand Central and the Port Authority Bus terminal in NYC? What size airports and why? There's no easy way to scale that list down. A city like Chicago would have to list over 10 airports used by local residents. Etc. see above discussion. I don't think using airport codes helps with any of that, and it's best to not include airports in the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkriegls (talk • contribs) 2014-02-04T22:04:58 (UTC)

Albany, Vermont

Apparently, I should have posted here, in "talk", rather than editing the Albany, Vermont "History" section. My apologies. I just wanted to note that there was a "History of Albany, Vermont, 1806-1991" published (circa 1992?), edited by Virginia Wharton. I am attempting to find out if the Vermont Historical Society has a copy of this book and some formal reference. Trlong01 (talk) 15:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

It does exist, unfortunatly Google Books doesn't have a digital copy. Amazon has it here for $30 used, or you could support this Independent Vermont Bookseller and buy it for $40 here. Of course getting it through your historical society is a good bet. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 20:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Capital Hill or Capitol Hill ?

Is the capital of the Northern Mariana Islands "Capital Hill" or "Capitol Hill"? Please weigh in at Talk:Capital Hill, Saipan if you care. —  AjaxSmack  22:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

New to Wiki editing

Hi everyone! I'm new to Wikipedia editing. I'm a graduate broadcast journalism student at American University and am taking a class on Wikipedia. I've posted some pictures from my study abroad trip to Paris on Wikimedia Commons. Any feedback or advice for future posts is greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:A:3C80:244:28BE:AED0:62E1:224 (talk) 04:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Eastside_Los_Angeles#New_definition_of_East_Side

Neutral notification of ongoing discussion of where the boundaries of the East side of Los Angeles are taking place now for your editing pleasure at the above noted link! Bonne santé, mes citoyens!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested move of Newport

A requested moves discussion has been started at Talk:Newport#Requested_move on a proposal to rename the article Newport to Newport, Wales.

This article falls within the scope of this project, so project members may wish to contribute to discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Best city this and that

In quite many articles, there are prominent mentions that Lonely Planet or some other travel organization has named the city as the best for this of best for that some time in the past. Given that many travel organizations make several such lists (best city, best for nightlife, best for shopping etc) every year, and with new cities each year, I don't really see the relevance. Unless there's an official ranking of some sort, I would recommend removing all such mentions from city articles, or at least only keep the most recent (2013-2014). If Sarajevo was ranked best by Lonely Planet for something in 2006 or Thessaloniki best for something else in 2009, I'm not sure it's on any encyclopaedic value. This mentions are not proper rankings so saying the city is best is rather dubious. Particularly when there have been several rankings since in which the city is not mentioned.Jeppiz (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I could see an article specific due-weight argument against what you have pointed to, but I am having difficulty seeing a top-down ban as a good idea (as a related issue, do you have an opinion on use in tourism articles or sections?) Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Not looking for any ban, more in terms of proper representation and due weight. In other words, I don't think it should ever be in the introduction to a city (as is the case with Sarajevo, the article that brought me here as I had just seen a similar thing at Thessaloniki). The tourism section could be a relevant place for it, but then with wording such as In 20XX, Lonely Planet named the city as one of the best destinations that year instead of The city has been ranked as one of the best in world followed by a ref to Lonely Planet.Jeppiz (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that any type of ranking should always be put into context: what group gave the ranking and the year it was given. I do that with schools too. --JonRidinger (talk) 00:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you would be hard pressed to make an argument for removing such listings, even from the lead. All the major cities include their top rankings from one index or another in their lead. So simply listing such rankings in the lead is widespread practice. Now, the second question (which was actually the first one posed), is Lonely Planet's rankings somehow less deserving? The only support for this argument I read above was that these aren't "proper rankings". If most major cities have some ranking they are tops on in their lead, what makes a WP:Notable source like a Lonely Planet ranking different? I'm not against this, just asking the question. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Good question. I would say there are two main differences. The first is that most other rankings tend to be based on some measurable fact, while the LP rankings are usually the opinion of a small number of personsl. The second is that most other rankings tend to be rather stable. If city X has the highest literacy rate, the most number of millionaires, highest ratio of doctors per inhabitant, or highest proportion of cyclists this year, it's very likely it will rank highly on the same criteria next year as well. LP is fundamentally different as the very idea is to find new spots, and usually the cities included on their lists (not rankings) are only included once. I do think that that is enough to be mentioned in the tourism sections, but I really don't see how it's relevant for the lead that somebody at LP thought the city was a good party city ten years ago.Jeppiz (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Note that for colleges, ratings are normally not summarized in the lead. Why not do that here? They are subjective. Nearly every city over 100,000 can claim something in the "top 10" in the US, however trivial it may seem to the reader. Student7 (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Be aware that the more top 10s we add the more pressure there will be to add those bottom 10s. Also most of these are based on some really arbitrary set of criteria and the results vary of time, so how much value are they in an article? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on guidelines for article outline

Hi. I recently joined the project, and on the guidelines pages, I had a brief discussion (with a single other editor - Dkriegls) regarding trying to conform all the top US cities (as per List of United States cities by population) to follow the guidelines as closely as possible.

As has been pointed out in other discussions on this talkpage, while there is no strict policy on the format, it is also a quality of Wikipedia that folks don't necessary read an article all the way through, but simply go to the section in a city article which they are interested in. Additionally, even though this project is unique in that it is user-regulated, if we are striving to make articles as encyclopedic as possible (as indicated by the ratings scale), shouldn't we also be attempting to make the project as a whole as encyclopedic as well?

All that being said, I'd like to have a discussion regarding the viability of standardizing the city guidelines, and then beginning a project of bringing them all into that standard format. To me, this would solve two issues: first, the upgrading of the entire project to more closely resemble the historical conformity of encyclopedias (e.g. Encyclopedia Britannica); and second, it would aid people looking for a particular fact in an article, if the order was standardized. I've already gone through the first 26 cities on the list, and have gotten mostly positive feedback. In fact, only on two articles were any negative comments made, on Chicago, where my edits were reverted, but after explaining that they were per the guidelines, no further comments were made. Only on Washington DC was there an editor who simply does not like the guidelines, was there any significant negativity. Also, not sure if this is the right talkpage (should it be on the guidelines talkpage)? Onel5969 (talk) 14:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Having a uniform format helps increase clarity, which I would encourage and agree with. Note that there are some different guidelines, I have never compared them. But it might be worth trying to unify them worldwide, if the guidelines are not to different from each other (of course while allowing the necessary locally needed adjustments). CRwikiCA talk 16:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I am the one who objected on Chicago, and it was primarily that the format became worse, after your first edit - which you later rectified in subsequent edits, after the reversion. To impose binding conformity would require a binding decision of the whole editor corp, probabely at WP:VPP in an WP:RfC. But, it seems doubtful to me that a very strict rule would pass. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree, that on Wikipedia we cannot impose article formatting rules. Guidelines and striving for uniformity is good, although it should never be imposed against consensus on an individual article. I would definitely recommend discussing major formatting changes on the talk page especially for articles that have FA or GA status and might be formatted different from guidelines in their respective review processes. CRwikiCA talk 17:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a great sentiment, but, as I mentioned earlier, it will take some very patient editors to work on a page by page basis to bring uniformity and won't likely come from on high by changing some Wikipedia rule. But I fully support the effort. Looks like the Chicago edit when okay. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 02:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all the input. I'm through the top 30 cities in the US so far, and the only issue remains Washington DC. I've attempted to engage in discussion, but the folks there don't seem interested in discussion. Oh, well. The other 29 have gone well. I post a notice on the talk page first, eliciting discussion, then if there is none, I go forward and restructure the page. It'll take me a month or so to get through the top 100 US Cities, then I'll move on to the top 100 World cities. When I do, I'll attempt to get some type of consensus regarding reconciling the structure with the US structure, and let you all know how it turns out. I'm not jazzed myself on some of the choices (e.g. why is crime under government, not demographics? I understand the arguments, just disagree with them), but will make the changes per the consensus.Onel5969 (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 01:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC).

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

"Plymouth"

The usage of Plymouth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Plymouth -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Large scale removal of twin towns in city articles

I am writing here to see what the consensus is, Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) has been progressively removing twin town listings from city articles labeling it as cruft. he provides some explanation here but I don't think there is any community consensus for this removal. what do people think? LibStar (talk) 03:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

There was a discussion of deleting Sister cities on this very page (here). There was not a consensus for project wide delete. In that discussion, I generally supported deleting if the relationship lacked reference proving its notability and not just its existence. I think Ohconfucius should be reverted and he should be referred here if he wants to build consensus for his project wide deletes. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 23:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Portal:New York City FPO nomination

Hello. I have nominated Portal:New York City for Featured Portal status. Please engage in discussion at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:New York City. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Please consider commenting at the above page regarding the nomination of the NYC portal for featured status. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Riverdale Park, Maryland

Could we get some more eyes on this please? I have to leave the net for the weekend in a few minutes, and I do not really have the time to try to deal with the very over-eager new editor there. From the appearance of his talk page, this may well end up at AN/I. John from Idegon (talk) 22:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm taking a look at it right now, John from Idegon, and the article is certainly a mess. I'm leaving message on the city's talk page, and let's see how he responds to it. Onel5969 (talk) 01:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Greenville SC to Mid-Importance

Greenville, SC should be listed as Mid-Importance, instead of Low importance. Greenville's urban population is 400,492, and has a metro area of 850,965. The cities ranking below Greenville in those categories are all listed under mid-importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OurKing15 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Weather box

I am currently working my way through Wikipedia:Good_articles/Geography_and_places#Places, to check on the condition of the listed articles. I have noticed a tendency in some articles to rich use of media, and in particular the use of Template:Weather box. My initial instinct is that the box is rather noisy and distracting, and does not follow guidance at WP:NOTSTAT, WP:Embed and MOS:TABLE, in that if the important/essential information/statistics is already summarised in prose then such a table is either not needed, or if considered useful due to the significance of the climate to the topic, then it should be collapsed. There is also the consideration of due weight and focus - where an article is on a location which is not particularly notable for its climate, and where the information is already given in prose that the weather is typical for the region or country, then displaying a large and colourful table with a lot of detailed weather data for a village seems a little excessive.

However, I have noted that the weather box appears in a wide range of articles, and often has been in place for some time, so its use is well established, so my concerns may be misplaced, and that the box has wide approval and consensus. However, as I couldn't find any previous discussion in the archives, I felt it was worth bringing up for discussion to see what the general consensus is - and if it might be useful to draw up guidelines for use of the box in settlement articles. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I, for one, like the weatherbox, although I think its placement is important to cut down on the white space in some articles. I agree that it should be collapsible, and perhaps if we reach consensus that could become part of the guidelines. I do think, in general, there should be direction for the weatherbox in the guidelines, since it is so prevalent. There's an editor who's done quite a bit of good work in the climate section of many of the city articles I watch, Lieutenant of Melkor, and I'm adding him to the discussion since I think he may have some good insights into this. User:Onel5969, 13:42, 29 April 2014

When would Template:Climate chart be used in stead or as well as Template:Weather box? The climate chart contains less data, and would appear to be more appropriate for smaller settlements. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that while the weather box is a useful tool, its presence is not always a useful addition. Articles on villages in particular come to mind—more often than not climate is best described in the articles on an upper-level administrative divisions (although there are, of course, notable exceptions). Stub- and start-class articles (which is what most village articles are anyway) are another example—all too often adding a weather box creates white space problems, which are not easy to fix. Perhaps a recommendation should be added to the template advising against placing it to the articles on minor locations, especially where climate of an upper-level division is already described?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 29, 2014; 16:42 (UTC)

I prefer the climate chart which gives a quick and digestible overview of climate in a visually interesting way. It neatly supplements a prose description of climate. The weather box is too big with too many primary source statistics. I agree that detailed climate information is not needed in every settlement article and is better covered at the district or county level.--Charles (talk) 19:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Most of the suggestions above are reasonable, but one should also bear in mind whether there is a reasonably well-maintained climate station specifically designated for a settlement. Regardless of whether a locale is famous for its climate (à la Oymyakon or Verkhoyansk) or layout concerns, if there is such a station, the information should be included: {{Climate chart}} if only normal temps+normal total precip are available, {{Weather box}} if more normals are available. Regarding "too many primary source statistics", 1) labeling them as "primary source" as if that were a negative factor is inappropriate, normally it is the meteorological arms of governments that collect this data, making it often the best, if not only, data available for a site. 2) I am sure there are many readers interested in snow, frequency of precip/rain/snow, sunshine duration, relative humidity, and the monthly extreme range in temperatures, all which {{Weather box}} support, but {{Climate chart}} does not. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 23:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I think there are readers who are interested in the level of detail provided by the Weather box, but they have to be balanced by the readers who are not. Wikipedia is a general encyclopaedia, our aim is to provide a summary of the most important information so that the reader is not overwhelmed by data. Though a bit crude: the more selective we are, the more useful we are to the most people. Some readers would also welcome bus and train timetables (see WP:NOTTIMETABLE); a map with detailed street index; opening times of the local chemist; recommendations and phones numbers for the best restaurants, etc. However, quite early on it was decided that Wikipedia would not be WP:INDISCRIMINATE, especially as regards statistical data: "Where it is not necessary .... omit excess statistics altogether and summarize any necessary data concisely." For larger regions, it is useful to have detailed summaries of overall weather conditions, as that is part of the overall picture; but to have that data repeated for every location is not necessary. I think best practise would be, as suggested, to summarise the local weather, and direct the reader to the higher level article if they wish for the greater detail. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

What a "larger region" is needs to be defined first. If that includes major cities for which there usually are devoted climatology stations, then we are in total agreement here. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 02:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking as I wrote the above that it would be helpful to define "larger region", especially as it would then be useful to include a link to the article on that region's climate, such as Climate of south-west England, and to comment if there are variations in the locality for what is regarded as average for the region. To note, for example, that annual rainfall in the Greater Manchester area is lower than average for the UK due to the protection provided by the mountains in North Wales, though it experiences higher than average rainfall during the summer months. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

From what I've seen so far on Wikipedia, not all of the rows in the "Weather box" table are frequently used - depending on how much reliable data is available for a specific location. Using the "climate chart" instead may save some space (if indeed that is a real issue for certain articles) as only a very few parameters can be displayed with it. Not all geographic locations will have specific climate data available for that same, exact location - so either of these boxes shouldn't be used for "nearby" climate sites IMHO. Making the "weather box" collapsible sounds like an excellent idea to me, and just summarizing local climate conditions in small paragraph format is always an option (though I doubt that doing both that and using a box will usually be ideal). I've always been generally in favor of more information vs. less information in Wikipedia articles, provided that there were valid, reliable sources for the information provided. "Primary sources" are actually preferred for this type of climate information, especially in the USA (the NWS). In other words, it's better to cite the specific agency that collected the data in the first place if at all possible, since it's usually more accurate. Guy1890 (talk) 06:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it can be useful to have more rather than less information, though how we store and present the information is important. We don't need to repeat essentially the same information on every article when linking to that information may be a more appropriate and useful approach. Writing good regional climate articles, and then linking to them as needed, may be a more effective approach than using weather boxes on all location articles. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

"We don't need to repeat essentially the same information on every article when linking to that information may be a more appropriate and useful approach." If there's actual, verifiable climate information available for a particular geographic location, then that information won't be "repeated" anywhere, since that infomation is unique to that location only. Are there climate "averages" (I have some trouble using that term, since all climate numbers are just longer-term averages themselves) available for specific regions of geography? Sure, but those "averages" are almost always derived from a set of unique, individual locations with different (although sometimes similiar) numbers. I'm not at all opposed to "good regional climate articles", but doing that doesn't necessarily replace accurate & specific climate numbers for specific geographic locations.

BTW, by default, the weather boxes are not setup to be collapsed, but, if you add the parameter "|collapsed= Y or |collapsed= Yes", the box will always start out displayed in an article in a collapsed state. I think that solves any space issues. Guy1890 (talk) 02:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

While there are issues regarding the use of the weather box due to the creation of excess white space, you can use the parameter ''<div style="width:50%;"> before the table, and </div> (can be any number, not just 50%; I prefer 75% or 80%) after to shrink the weather box to remove the excess white space. I have done this on many city articles. There is no need to advise users not to put weather box in village articles if the source is reliable; some of them are known for having a unique climate such as the examples given above and I think many readers are interested in knowing which places are the coldest, warmest, sunniest, cloudiest, rainiest, etc. I would support the usage of weather box over the climate chart because I agree with other users that more information is better than less information and secondly, it does not automatically round the data as it does in the climate chart (makes the data less verifiable and precise). Ssbbplayer (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Fixed the div style so it shows up. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 15:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Corrected the ordering in {{Climate chart}} so the normal tmax/tlow display properly. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 15:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Kugaaruk Airport
Climate chart (explanation)
J F M A M J J A S O N D     9     −30 −37     8.1     −30 −37     14     −24 −33     20     −14 −25     19     −4 −12     22     6 0     37     14 5     45     10 3     29     3 −2     28     −6 −12     18     −17 −25     14     −25 −32 █ Average max. and min. temperatures in °C █ Precipitation totals in mm Source: Environment Canada Canadian Climate Normals 1981–2010
Imperial conversion J F M A M J J A S O N D     0.4     −22 −35     0.3     −21 −35     0.6     −11 −27     0.8     6 −12     0.7     25 11     0.9     43 31     1.4     57 40     1.8     50 37     1.1     37 28     1.1     21 10     0.7     1 −13     0.5     −12 −26 █ Average max. and min. temperatures in °F █ Precipitation totals in inches

Climate data for Kugaaruk Airport (blue colour)
Month	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Year
Record high humidex	−6.7	−9.9	−3.5	1.3	5.4	25.3	31.2	25.7	18.4	6.0	−0.7	−1.5	31.2
Record high °C (°F)	−7.0 (19.4)	−10.0 (14.0)	−3.5 (25.7)	1.8 (35.2)	7.5 (45.5)	26.0 (78.8)	27.5 (81.5)	29.0 (84.2)	18.5 (65.3)	8.0 (46.4)	0.0 (32.0)	−2.5 (27.5)	29.0 (84.2)
Mean daily maximum °C (°F)	−29.9 (−21.8)	−29.6 (−21.3)	−24.0 (−11.2)	−14.3 (6.3)	−4.0 (24.8)	6.1 (43.0)	13.9 (57.0)	10.1 (50.2)	2.7 (36.9)	−6.0 (21.2)	−17.4 (0.7)	−24.6 (−12.3)	−9.7 (14.5)
Daily mean °C (°F)	−33.5 (−28.3)	−33.5 (−28.3)	−28.5 (−19.3)	−19.4 (−2.9)	−7.9 (17.8)	2.9 (37.2)	9.3 (48.7)	6.5 (43.7)	0.4 (32.7)	−9.1 (15.6)	−21.1 (−6.0)	−28.3 (−18.9)	−13.5 (7.7)
Mean daily minimum °C (°F)	−37.1 (−34.8)	−37.3 (−35.1)	−33.0 (−27.4)	−24.5 (−12.1)	−11.7 (10.9)	−0.4 (31.3)	4.6 (40.3)	2.9 (37.2)	−2.0 (28.4)	−12.1 (10.2)	−24.9 (−12.8)	−32.0 (−25.6)	−17.3 (0.9)
Record low °C (°F)	−51.5 (−60.7)	−49.5 (−57.1)	−51.0 (−59.8)	−44.5 (−48.1)	−32.0 (−25.6)	−15.2 (4.6)	−1.5 (29.3)	−5.0 (23.0)	−14.0 (6.8)	−31.0 (−23.8)	−40.5 (−40.9)	−48.5 (−55.3)	−51.5 (−60.7)
Record low wind chill	−64.7	−68.2	−61.8	−51.4	−35.1	−22.7	0.0	−8.9	−19.8	−44.3	−51.7	−60.2	−68.2
Average precipitation mm (inches)	9.0 (0.35)	8.1 (0.32)	14.1 (0.56)	20.0 (0.79)	18.6 (0.73)	22.1 (0.87)	36.5 (1.44)	44.8 (1.76)	28.7 (1.13)	28.4 (1.12)	17.7 (0.70)	13.5 (0.53)	261.3 (10.29)
Average rainfall mm (inches)	0.0 (0.0)	0.0 (0.0)	0.0 (0.0)	0.0 (0.0)	1.1 (0.04)	18.1 (0.71)	36.5 (1.44)	43.1 (1.70)	15.2 (0.60)	2.6 (0.10)	0.0 (0.0)	0.0 (0.0)	116.6 (4.59)
Average snowfall cm (inches)	9.0 (3.5)	8.1 (3.2)	14.1 (5.6)	20.1 (7.9)	17.7 (7.0)	4.1 (1.6)	0.0 (0.0)	1.6 (0.6)	13.6 (5.4)	26.0 (10.2)	18.4 (7.2)	13.5 (5.3)	146.2 (57.6)
Average precipitation days (≥ 0.2 mm)	6.6	5.0	6.9	6.7	8.1	7.2	9.6	13.1	12.5	12.8	9.2	7.2	104.8
Average rainy days (≥ 0.2 mm)	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.6	5.9	9.6	12.8	6.5	0.6	0.0	0.0	36.0
Average snowy days (≥ 0.2 cm)	6.6	5.0	6.9	6.7	7.8	1.8	0.1	0.7	7.0	12.6	9.4	7.3	71.8
Average relative humidity (%)	72.7	78.1	73.2	80.8	82.9	77.3	66.4	72.0	81.2	85.0	79.0	78.4	77.2
Source: Environment Canada Canadian Climate Normals 1981–2010

Climate data for Kugaaruk Airport (pastel & green)
Month	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Year
Record high humidex	−6.7	−9.9	−3.5	1.3	5.4	25.3	31.2	25.7	18.4	6.0	−0.7	−1.5	31.2
Record high °C (°F)	−7.0 (19.4)	−10.0 (14.0)	−3.5 (25.7)	1.8 (35.2)	7.5 (45.5)	26.0 (78.8)	27.5 (81.5)	29.0 (84.2)	18.5 (65.3)	8.0 (46.4)	0.0 (32.0)	−2.5 (27.5)	29.0 (84.2)
Mean daily maximum °C (°F)	−29.9 (−21.8)	−29.6 (−21.3)	−24.0 (−11.2)	−14.3 (6.3)	−4.0 (24.8)	6.1 (43.0)	13.9 (57.0)	10.1 (50.2)	2.7 (36.9)	−6.0 (21.2)	−17.4 (0.7)	−24.6 (−12.3)	−9.7 (14.5)
Daily mean °C (°F)	−33.5 (−28.3)	−33.5 (−28.3)	−28.5 (−19.3)	−19.4 (−2.9)	−7.9 (17.8)	2.9 (37.2)	9.3 (48.7)	6.5 (43.7)	0.4 (32.7)	−9.1 (15.6)	−21.1 (−6.0)	−28.3 (−18.9)	−13.5 (7.7)
Mean daily minimum °C (°F)	−37.1 (−34.8)	−37.3 (−35.1)	−33.0 (−27.4)	−24.5 (−12.1)	−11.7 (10.9)	−0.4 (31.3)	4.6 (40.3)	2.9 (37.2)	−2.0 (28.4)	−12.1 (10.2)	−24.9 (−12.8)	−32.0 (−25.6)	−17.3 (0.9)
Record low °C (°F)	−51.5 (−60.7)	−49.5 (−57.1)	−51.0 (−59.8)	−44.5 (−48.1)	−32.0 (−25.6)	−15.2 (4.6)	−1.5 (29.3)	−5.0 (23.0)	−14.0 (6.8)	−31.0 (−23.8)	−40.5 (−40.9)	−48.5 (−55.3)	−51.5 (−60.7)
Record low wind chill	−64.7	−68.2	−61.8	−51.4	−35.1	−22.7	0.0	−8.9	−19.8	−44.3	−51.7	−60.2	−68.2
Average precipitation mm (inches)	9.0 (0.35)	8.1 (0.32)	14.1 (0.56)	20.0 (0.79)	18.6 (0.73)	22.1 (0.87)	36.5 (1.44)	44.8 (1.76)	28.7 (1.13)	28.4 (1.12)	17.7 (0.70)	13.5 (0.53)	261.3 (10.29)
Average rainfall mm (inches)	0.0 (0.0)	0.0 (0.0)	0.0 (0.0)	0.0 (0.0)	1.1 (0.04)	18.1 (0.71)	36.5 (1.44)	43.1 (1.70)	15.2 (0.60)	2.6 (0.10)	0.0 (0.0)	0.0 (0.0)	116.6 (4.59)
Average snowfall cm (inches)	9.0 (3.5)	8.1 (3.2)	14.1 (5.6)	20.1 (7.9)	17.7 (7.0)	4.1 (1.6)	0.0 (0.0)	1.6 (0.6)	13.6 (5.4)	26.0 (10.2)	18.4 (7.2)	13.5 (5.3)	146.2 (57.6)
Average precipitation days (≥ 0.2 mm)	6.6	5.0	6.9	6.7	8.1	7.2	9.6	13.1	12.5	12.8	9.2	7.2	104.8
Average rainy days (≥ 0.2 mm)	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.6	5.9	9.6	12.8	6.5	0.6	0.0	0.0	36.0
Average snowy days (≥ 0.2 cm)	6.6	5.0	6.9	6.7	7.8	1.8	0.1	0.7	7.0	12.6	9.4	7.3	71.8
Average relative humidity (%)	72.7	78.1	73.2	80.8	82.9	77.3	66.4	72.0	81.2	85.0	79.0	78.4	77.2
Source: Environment Canada Canadian Climate Normals 1981–2010

Climate data for Kugaaruk Airport (no colour)
Month	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Year
Record high humidex	−6.7	−9.9	−3.5	1.3	5.4	25.3	31.2	25.7	18.4	6.0	−0.7	−1.5	31.2
Record high °C (°F)	−7.0 (19.4)	−10.0 (14.0)	−3.5 (25.7)	1.8 (35.2)	7.5 (45.5)	26.0 (78.8)	27.5 (81.5)	29.0 (84.2)	18.5 (65.3)	8.0 (46.4)	0.0 (32.0)	−2.5 (27.5)	29.0 (84.2)
Mean daily maximum °C (°F)	−29.9 (−21.8)	−29.6 (−21.3)	−24.0 (−11.2)	−14.3 (6.3)	−4.0 (24.8)	6.1 (43.0)	13.9 (57.0)	10.1 (50.2)	2.7 (36.9)	−6.0 (21.2)	−17.4 (0.7)	−24.6 (−12.3)	−9.7 (14.5)
Daily mean °C (°F)	−33.5 (−28.3)	−33.5 (−28.3)	−28.5 (−19.3)	−19.4 (−2.9)	−7.9 (17.8)	2.9 (37.2)	9.3 (48.7)	6.5 (43.7)	0.4 (32.7)	−9.1 (15.6)	−21.1 (−6.0)	−28.3 (−18.9)	−13.5 (7.7)
Mean daily minimum °C (°F)	−37.1 (−34.8)	−37.3 (−35.1)	−33.0 (−27.4)	−24.5 (−12.1)	−11.7 (10.9)	−0.4 (31.3)	4.6 (40.3)	2.9 (37.2)	−2.0 (28.4)	−12.1 (10.2)	−24.9 (−12.8)	−32.0 (−25.6)	−17.3 (0.9)
Record low °C (°F)	−51.5 (−60.7)	−49.5 (−57.1)	−51.0 (−59.8)	−44.5 (−48.1)	−32.0 (−25.6)	−15.2 (4.6)	−1.5 (29.3)	−5.0 (23.0)	−14.0 (6.8)	−31.0 (−23.8)	−40.5 (−40.9)	−48.5 (−55.3)	−51.5 (−60.7)
Record low wind chill	−64.7	−68.2	−61.8	−51.4	−35.1	−22.7	0.0	−8.9	−19.8	−44.3	−51.7	−60.2	−68.2
Average precipitation mm (inches)	9.0 (0.35)	8.1 (0.32)	14.1 (0.56)	20.0 (0.79)	18.6 (0.73)	22.1 (0.87)	36.5 (1.44)	44.8 (1.76)	28.7 (1.13)	28.4 (1.12)	17.7 (0.70)	13.5 (0.53)	261.3 (10.29)
Average rainfall mm (inches)	0.0 (0.0)	0.0 (0.0)	0.0 (0.0)	0.0 (0.0)	1.1 (0.04)	18.1 (0.71)	36.5 (1.44)	43.1 (1.70)	15.2 (0.60)	2.6 (0.10)	0.0 (0.0)	0.0 (0.0)	116.6 (4.59)
Average snowfall cm (inches)	9.0 (3.5)	8.1 (3.2)	14.1 (5.6)	20.1 (7.9)	17.7 (7.0)	4.1 (1.6)	0.0 (0.0)	1.6 (0.6)	13.6 (5.4)	26.0 (10.2)	18.4 (7.2)	13.5 (5.3)	146.2 (57.6)
Average precipitation days (≥ 0.2 mm)	6.6	5.0	6.9	6.7	8.1	7.2	9.6	13.1	12.5	12.8	9.2	7.2	104.8
Average rainy days (≥ 0.2 mm)	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.6	5.9	9.6	12.8	6.5	0.6	0.0	0.0	36.0
Average snowy days (≥ 0.2 cm)	6.6	5.0	6.9	6.7	7.8	1.8	0.1	0.7	7.0	12.6	9.4	7.3	71.8
Average relative humidity (%)	72.7	78.1	73.2	80.8	82.9	77.3	66.4	72.0	81.2	85.0	79.0	78.4	77.2
Source: Environment Canada Canadian Climate Normals 1981–2010

Here's an example of both templates for Kugaaruk a smaller community of 711 people. In this case I've used <div style=width:50%> while the article uses <div style=width:80%>. There is an obvious problem with {{climate chart}}, see User:Jolly Janner/Climate#Climate lulz for more examples, that has been known about since 2009, Template talk:Climate chart#Scaling related issues, and is not just a problem with cold temperatures. There are some other problems with it. To get an explanation you end up at Template:Climate chart/How to read a climate chart when you click on the "explanation" link. That needs fixing as well if the chart is to be used in a lot of articles. If the chart uses inches for rain, as it should for US places, it rounds them up to one decimal place rather than the customary two decimal places that the National Weather Service uses. Also the figures in the chart are so small as to make them unreadable. I can read the weather box even when set to 50%.

Even if the {{climate chart}} did work correctly I would still prefer the {{weatherbox}} because it gives more information and what it shows is more accurate (no rounding). There are problems with the weather box. There have been some concerns that there is way too much blue. However, there are options to change to pastel and green or no colour at all. For some reason it converts mm to three decimal places while it should be two, but cm to in works fine. The % humidity line needs defining, is that the humidity at 6 am, 3 pm or a 24 hour average. Obviously, the weather box can be set to collapsed to avoid distracting the reader. So for somewhere like Austin, Texas#Climate I would reduce the size of the weather box and collapse it. Then the reader has the choice to see greater detail or not. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 17:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• It looks as if the weather box defines "% humidity" as the average daily % humidity, but I agree that this should probably be displayed for the user. Guy1890 (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• I also agree with some users above, "weather box" is the best tool but in articles about smaller towns we can use option of "collapse". Personally, I am against to using of div style="width:x%. Artificially reduced (option "width:x%") weather box is unreadable, strange and it includes only little less space than normal. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 17:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)