Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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)

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)

The weather box and the climate chart really do two different, but complementary things. The weatherbox provides detailed data, but isn't very useful as a visualisation. Color coding simply isn't the same thing as a chart. The two templates should be merged, so that we can have both detailed data and a visually effective chart generated from the same input data. Zocky | picture popups 01:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't have much of a horse in this race, though I lean on the side of inclusion. However, I wanted to address the opening claim that this might violate WP:NOTSTAT. I spend a lot of time with lists and this sometimes comes up. WP:NOTSTAT is not a call for no data charts or statistics. It's a call for clarity, presentation, and relevance to the article. Hence the text: "articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. In cases where this may be necessary, consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists." I think both forms of weather presentation being discussed here are clear, concise, and presented in a complimentary manner. Charts are an acceptable way to add additional presentation clarity to data already discussed in the body text. This discussion thread never seemed to address that original argument against inclusion, so I just wanted to make sure it wasn't still being considered as a reason for exclusion. Cheers. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Good point raised Dkriegls. I think, however, when people reference NOTSTAT, one of the points they are considering is: "Where it is not necessary ... omit excess statistics altogether and summarize any necessary data concisely." And that is the part that was in my mind when I referenced it at the start.

I'm not sure we are getting a clear consensus here on the best way forward. There's an inclination away from the weather box, or at least reducing it, from some editors, and a defence of it from others - especially those interested in weather. I think it may be worth reaching out to the wider community to get more input. It's a shame we can't set up a simple reader survey for moments like this, as we sometimes tend to make assumptions regarding what readers want based on our own inclinations. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

With stats, it seems an important, if not crucial part of geography, supporting a claim of Koppen which sometimes seems invented otherwise. But collapsed.

The chart is admittedly clever, eyecatching and understandable. Maybe too much so for an encyclopedia. Maybe better for an almanac since it lacks granularity. Simple English Wikipedia perhaps?

As far as "reader vs editor", it seems to me that we have sufficient editor input here to represent "all shades of opinion." A lot of editors here that I never heard of before (except the last two) and they are all representing the topic well IMO.

Student7 (talk) 18:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC: When is the presentation of statistics excessive?

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 09:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi all,

I recently submitted the article Briarcliff Manor, New York to the list of featured article candidates. I am actively following its review, and will be glad to take criticism and advice, and I welcome you to edit the article directly. Would any members of this WikiProject take some time to assist in the article review? Thank you.

Respectfully,
--ɱ (talk) 00:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Cheers! Well, after a very quick look, I can comment that I am not a big fan of the "Neighboring places" graphic. I rarely see it on big cities or featured cities and only see it as filler for small towns without much else in the article. My opinion is that it useless space filler that is better communicated in prose. But honestly, just my opinion. I do remember a debate about it ending in the same conclusion, but nothing at a policy level. Otherwise, all the big check list items were there, but again, just a quick look see. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 04:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Dkriegls, I wish you had posted this to the review page, now one of the coordinators closed it for not enough responses. I agree that the neighboring places graphic is large and perhaps could be put into prose, but its layout is decent and simple, and it shows people nearby towns without needing a citation as text would. I don't think a single citation could be found that could cover all of that anyway. Thanks for the feedback.--ɱ (talk) 19:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Shijiazhuang has a typical example of the frustratingly useless style of infobox location mapping that is all too common across Wikipedia. When you come to an article about a city, or any other place, the first thing you want to see is a clear map showing location within a context that you understand. Here there are three totally useless maps (for this purpose), and the only useful map is a tiny inset right at the bottom. People need to realise that outlines of countries cut out of their context are often hard to recognise, especially when mixed up with maps of local adminstrative areas with unfamiliar shapes. The inset map, with the surrounding countries, sea and helpful shading, is the one that should be shown prominently at the top in the infobox. The other low-level stuff can be relegated to another place. 86.179.112.79 (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I just added a request to the assessment request list, but I thought I'd post a notification here because it looks like there's a significant amount of requests awaiting response over there. Could an experienced editor please consider going over each of the articles still needing assessment? Thank you! - SweetNightmares 21:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not involved in this project, but I look up a lot of cities. Something that is definitely missing from almost all the articles on small cities, and that would be very useful IMHO, is a consistent (or any) mention of the nearest major city or widely recognizable location. Today I looked up Nathrop, Colorado. While there is a lot of technical information about its location, for the life of me I can't figure out whether this is some remote mining community, or whether it's an exurb of Denver, or close to some more well-known place in Colorado. It seems to me that encyclopedia users would want to have information like this. I know that I do, and I know that it is too often not available in Wikipedia. An exception that I looked at today is Carlsbad, California. When you read the introductory paragarphs, they pretty much tell you just where this place is located.

Another thing that is frequently missing is whether or not a city is in a Metropolitan Statistical Area of any sort. Carlsbad might well be part of the San Diego area, but you can't tell from the article or the infobox. Lou Sander (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

You can get a gist of the location of any place quickly by using the MiniAtlas (click on the down arrow on the globe image to the left of the coordinates). This won't help you with the MSAs, of course, but figuring out whether a place is in the middle of nowhere or in the suburbs of a big city is something this tool makes immediately obvious. You can zoom in and out as you need, too. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 31, 2014; 16:27 (UTC)

@Ezhiki: That is really nice! Thanks for pointing it out. Readers who don't know about that feature are still in the dark about where a little-known place is in relation to better-known places, though. IMHO, something about that should be in the body of the article, unless the place is well-known. Lou Sander (talk) 00:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, editors of WikiProject Cities:

List of municipalities in Tennessee is outdated, and not, in its current state, one of Wikipedia's best. Thus, I'm nominating it for featured list removal. The relevant discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of municipalities in Tennessee/archive1. Thanks. Seattle (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

It has been suggested that the subject city subarticle be moved to Louisville Metro. Please read all the arguments made so far and participate if you have a chance. Thanks! Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI Category:Walled towns and Category:Fortified cities have been requested to be merged together -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)