Template talk:Weather box

  1. Home
  2. Wiki


Solar exposure MJ/m2

[edit]

There is no solar exposure energy row definition. This is most commonly expressed in SI units MJ/m2 (Megajoules per metre squared).

As solar energy is increasingly important this is now often collected by meteorology organisations.

"Mean maximum" and "Mean daily maximum" are confusing

[edit]

Yes I know this has been discussed before, but it's still an issue. I've spent 30-40mins reading comments and looking up parameter text and template docs just figuring out what these two row descriptions are meant to mean. My suggestion is to align the template text with the parameter text. So "Mean maximum" becomes "Average record high" and "Mean daily maximum" becomes "Average high". Regardless of whether changes are ever made, or what they are made to be (because I don't think everyone will ever be happy with the terms used, based on the prior circuitous discussions) I'd also recommend adding notes that appear at the bottom of the template (below "Source:...") explaining what each of the terms in question mean. These notes could be added now while time is taken to determine the best course of action on the proper wording for these rows. 172.59.64.42 (talk) 02:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Im not thrilled about the change we made, but i can't say average record high would be any clearer. It sounds like a contradiction in terms. A monthly record is not the highest temperature recorded in a 30-day period, it's the highest temperature recorded in every instance of that 30-day period each calendar year. —Soap— 13:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Mean monthly maximum/minimum" would be far clearer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.171.12.89 (talk) 10:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it would be, for the "month" columns. The problem is that there's also a "year" column, which in those rows answers the question, "on average, what is the highest and lowest temperature in a calendar year?". --Trovatore (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic calculation does not always work correctly

[edit]

The use of automatically adding up amounts for the annual figure should be discouraged. It does not always match the the source see the examples below. The first uses the sourced figures and the second uses the automatic calculation in the year column.

Climate data for Chapais
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year
Average precipitation mm (inches) 61.9
(2.44) 		39.4
(1.55) 		50.3
(1.98) 		56.6
(2.23) 		82.4
(3.24) 		100.1
(3.94) 		124.3
(4.89) 		100.2
(3.94) 		129.7
(5.11) 		93.9
(3.70) 		93.2
(3.67) 		63.5
(2.50) 		995.8
(39.20)
Average rainfall mm (inches) 3.2
(0.13) 		2.4
(0.09) 		8.8
(0.35) 		28.7
(1.13) 		75.5
(2.97) 		100.1
(3.94) 		124.3
(4.89) 		100.2
(3.94) 		128.6
(5.06) 		70.9
(2.79) 		36.7
(1.44) 		5.0
(0.20) 		684.5
(26.95)
Average snowfall cm (inches) 58.8
(23.1) 		37.0
(14.6) 		41.6
(16.4) 		29.5
(11.6) 		6.9
(2.7) 		0.0
(0.0) 		0.0
(0.0) 		0.0
(0.0) 		1.2
(0.5) 		23.0
(9.1) 		56.5
(22.2) 		58.5
(23.0) 		312.9
(123.2)
Source: Environment and Climate Change Canada,[1] precipitation and precipitation days,[2]
Climate data for Chapais
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year
Average precipitation mm (inches) 61.9
(2.44) 		39.4
(1.55) 		50.3
(1.98) 		56.6
(2.23) 		82.4
(3.24) 		100.1
(3.94) 		124.3
(4.89) 		100.2
(3.94) 		129.7
(5.11) 		93.9
(3.70) 		93.2
(3.67) 		63.5
(2.50) 		995.5
(39.19)
Average rainfall mm (inches) 3.2
(0.13) 		2.4
(0.09) 		8.8
(0.35) 		28.7
(1.13) 		75.5
(2.97) 		100.1
(3.94) 		124.3
(4.89) 		100.2
(3.94) 		128.6
(5.06) 		70.9
(2.79) 		36.7
(1.44) 		5.0
(0.20) 		684.4
(26.93)
Average snowfall cm (inches) 58.8
(23.1) 		37.0
(14.6) 		41.6
(16.4) 		29.5
(11.6) 		6.9
(2.7) 		0.0
(0.0) 		0.0
(0.0) 		0.0
(0.0) 		1.2
(0.5) 		23.0
(9.1) 		56.5
(22.2) 		58.5
(23.0) 		313
(123.2)
Source: Environment and Climate Change Canada,[1] precipitation and precipitation days,[2]

References

  1. ^ a b "Chapais & Chapais 2". Canadian Climate Normals 1991-2020 Data. Environment and Climate Change Canada. 1 October 2024. Retrieved 8 November 2024.
  2. ^ a b "Chapais 2". Canadian Climate Normals 1981-2010 Station Data. Environment and Climate Change Canada. 1 October 2024. Retrieved 8 November 2024.

CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see a 0.03% difference in the totals, for figures that in most places will vary by up to 50% annualy. Is that what you are objecting to? – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm objecting to providing incorrect information and the fact that the auto example removes the zero after the decimal point. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Snow depth colour and Average extreme snow depth

[edit]

See above at Template talk:Weather box#EXTREME snow depth. The word extreme needs to be removed from "Average extreme snow depth". The "Snow depth colour" should either work or be removed from the documentation. I'd prefer that it worked. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 23:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request to change "Percent possible sunshine" to "Possible sunshine percentage" (redux)

[edit]

I've brought up this issue before (Template talk:Weather box/Archive 10#Possible sunshine header conflict with MOS:CONSISTENT), but could we update the text in the table from "Percent possible sunshine" to "Possible sunshine percentage"?

As noted in the previous discussion, this template is used in numerous articles that follow different conventions for spelling the word (e.g., per cent). This inconsistency has led to multiple MOS:ARTCON and MOS:TIES conflicts across affected articles. Changing the wording to "percentage" wold rectify this issue.

There appeared to be support for making this change in the last discussion (albeit from a limited number of participants), although no concrete action was taken beyond testing it in a sandbox until the discussion eventually tapered off. So with that in mind, could we move forward with implementing this adjustment? Leventio (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your link to the previous discussion, and the following sandbox diff, show slightly different wording. The above is Possible sunshine percentage whereas previously it was Percentage possible sunshine. Search Template:Weather box/testcases for "percentage" to see the sandbox output. I don't recall what led me to put that wording in the sandbox but other opinions are needed.
Module:Weather box • Module:Weather box/sandbox • same content
What wikitext is wanted? Johnuniq (talk) 09:53, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, didn't realize I flipped the wording around. I'm fine with the wording used before (Percentage possible sunshine). Leventio (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the module to use "Percentage possible sunshine". Johnuniq (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great. Thanks for tackling that! Leventio (talk) 05:12, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adjusting the width of the opened table?

[edit]

I'm interested in fixing this table. Currently, if you open the collapsed table, the information appears far below due to the interaction with the Infobox. The "width" parameter seems to only change the width of the collapsed version of the table - is it possible to adjust the width of the opened version? Thanks. Dekadoka (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The table shouldn't be collapsed as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Scrolling lists and collapsible content. Are you using Chrome or Brave? It's fine on Firefox and Edge but on Chrome / Brave it's pushed below the infobox. I've had some success with <div style="width:75%">{{some weatherbox}}</div> but even reducing it with that cuts off the "year" column. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 23:06, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Firefox, but it still seems to be below the infobox. Seems like it's just not an included feature unfortunately. The article is extremely short so maybe it's an outlier. I haven't come across the same problem anywhere else yet. Dekadoka (talk) 02:03, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen it elsewhere. But I can't think where. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 14:17, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

[edit]

Why there is a parameter |metric first =? Most weatherboxes in Wikipedia have metric units first, so would it be better to have a parameter |imperial first =? Or parameters like |first = metric and |first =imperial so neither can be said to be default? Why this has been set up so? Also, it would be nice to have the following:

  • Mean sea-level pressure.
  • Average wind speed.
  • An optional chart with temperature, precipitation, snowfall and snow depth values under the weatherbox.
  • A Köppen and Trewartha climate classification calculator for header.

Could these be added? --40bus (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It needs the "metric first" because the original author made it that way. And it's stayed that way because of inertia. But it should have been the other way round.
  • As for the mean sea-level pressure and the wind it would have an impact on the size of the template. This is already one of the biggest.
  • There's an optional chart {{Climate chart}} for temperature. There could easily be another for snow depth.
  • The calculator in the header sounds like an excellent idea.
CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 00:29, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But I would like to have an optional chart which would be integrated to main weatherbox template, like in Finnish Wikipedia's corresponding Ilmastotaulukko template. The chart would be disabled by setting |chart = no. This chart would, unlike {{Climate chart}}, also show mean, record high and record low temperatures as well as snowfall and snow depth. Also, the climate classification calculator would be placed on a row between header and the main cells, and it would be like this (in article Helsinki as an example):
Köppen climate classification: Dfb, Trewartha climate classification: Dcbo
It would automatically understand the changes you made to mean temperatures and precipitation values, such as if you change July mean temperature (18.1 °C) under 18.0 °C, then Trewartha classification would automatically change to Dclo. This would be a good feature. --40bus (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Finnish weather box one has an advantage in that it's a lot smaller than this one. As seen at fi:Helsinki (Helsinki) or fi:Amsterdam (Amsterdam). The chart could be added if people want it. I like the climate classification calculator. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:54, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Finnish weatherbox template does not show record highs and lows. But the English Wikipedia's chart should show them, as well as mean temperatures. --40bus (talk) 02:46, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Desert Research Institute may be deleting content soon

[edit]

As I've complained before, the Desert Research Institute has changed their interface from a bare-bones utilitarian one that gives us all the data we need with little effort ..... into a heavily restricted point and click interface that sharply limits the amount of data that can be accessed in one site visit, uses a third-party map host, and seems designed to frustrate "browsers" (people who want data for the sake of curiosity rather than immediate defined needs) and essentially shut down traffic from the wider Internet. It may be that they've long had a problem with automated traffic, and that the only way they can lighten their load is to make it more difficult for humans to access as well .... still, it doesnt make sense to me. Anyway .... that all happened a few years ago. Up until now, they've still had the old links up, but for the first time I noticed the state maps are no longer functioning. This means the rest of it may soon disappear. This will affect weather boxes for the USA only, and there is no convenient replacement. I don't ask anyone to shoulder the task of changing dozens, possibly hundreds, of weather boxes from DRI to some new source when they finally shut off access. I'm just asking that we not go around deleting the hard work of all of us who added those weather boxes to Wikipedia when DRI was still fully functioning. Best wishes, Lollipop (talk) (an alt account of Soap) 01:05, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would they not then be dead references and subject to non-removal? CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:00, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know but it hasnt stopped people removing things before. in any case i think its time to move on .... NOAA has a site of its own now, here, and while it's not as good for mass data access as DRI's site was, it's more user-friendly and has more data per station. It seems it's possible to access data more quickly by getting one PDF loaded (use "Preview"), and then changing the station ID to a different station instead of clicking all the boxes again and re-submitting (since they dont save). one annoying thing is that they dont seem to list records, only averages, so i assume people are getting the record highs and lows from some other page on the same site, which .... if i can find it ... i will also link here. —Soap— 22:51, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
acutally, it seems that the "Data Types" search filter isnt actually used in generating the PDF, so only the location field needs to be filled in. it seems that the Data Types is a means of searching for stations that have a certain data type, rather than retrieving only that data type. so that saves a lot of clickwork. —Soap— 23:22, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"mean maximum" and "mean minimum" should be renamed or removed

[edit]

As they are referring to monthly data (taking the highest or lowest monthly temperature for all years and averaging them), the rows should be renamed to "mean monthly maximum" or "mean monthly minimum", and blanking the cell in the year column (as it would no longer be accurate), OR the rows should be removed completely and just have record high, mean daily maximum, daily mean, mean daily minimum, and record low.

I think when most people look up the weather boxes one of the most common questions would be "what is the average high in a month". Mathematically this is averaging all the highs for that month, through all years, aka the mean daily maximum. This is confusing for readers as we also have the mean monthly maximum row above that, which sounds like it could also be that calculation, but is markedly different in a way that very few people would understand without googling, spending significant amounts of time trying to parse the information, or seeing the many discussions here.

Personally I would prefer the mean maximum and mean minimum rows be removed for the reasons I have outlined above. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 22:40, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The rename to including "monthly" would be fine, except for the last column, which is the mean annual maximum/minimum, rather than monthly.
I think this is useful and pertinent information. I do agree that it's difficult to find a good name for it. But I don't think it makes sense to remove useful information just because we have trouble finding the right label for it. --Trovatore (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't we simply see the average temperature per month?

[edit]

I perhaps am missing something very obvious here, but why isn't the average monthly temperature displayed on any charts? Seems like an important number that is just completely omitted. Though I have no interest in the average high and lows, I can see why people may be interested - but I just want to see the average temperature per month in the year. Thanks John arneVN (talk) 04:44, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's "Daily mean". I'm not sure what's "daily" about it, though. --Trovatore (talk) 05:03, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, yes you are right - I should have noted that it is simply omitted from like 99% of all charts. I guess it's up to contributors to update it. Thanks for the reply. John arneVN (talk) 08:51, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]