text:
Wikivoyage talk:Climate Expedition

Climate-info
Archived from the Pub:

I added some information about the weather and climate in Ko Chang and Antalya. There is a template(not used in those articles) called Climate, where do I put an explanation and the article template of it? Or is it a good idea at all, or should I not work on it any further? --(WT-en) Adestro 10:28, 2 October 2006 (EDT)
 * I like the look of it, but I'm not sure how to use it. (WT-en) Jordanmills 07:58, 9 October 2006 (EDT)
 * I think this could be useful for travellers, but I wouldn't have it at the top of the page... Maybe at the bottom? This is where there will be a tags box, or in the understand section... -- (WT-en) Tim 18:54, 26 November 2006 (EST)

step-by-step instructions to add climate info
I couldn't decipher it from the expedition page: are there any ready-to-use instructions on how for any destination to find a climate information compliant with our license requirements (or find that there's none in the known sources), and add it to a destination page in question? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 09:36, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

sea temperature mapped, monthly
swept in from pub:

I wonder if anyone could suggest an online mapping service showing water average temperatures for most popular beaches, on a map, for a given month of the year? This one looks good, but doesn't allow zooming in to a country level, and doesnt have country and city labels.

Or: looking for a seaside place with comfortable weather in May/June to stay with a 1.5-year child, any suggestions preferably in/close to Europe or Asia or Nothern Africa :-). --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 12:29, 2 February 2010 (EST)

 * Update: I meant this one: http://marine(dot)rutgers.edu/opp/Temperature/Temperature1.html -- replace (dot) with ".": ---(WT-en) DenisYurkin 13:58, 2 February 2010 (EST)

 * this page is the current temps, but if you dig around a bit, you should be able to find historical data. http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/ml/ocean/sst/contour.html (WT-en) TomNativenewYorker 13:27, 2 February 2010 (EST)

 * I've seen it also earlier, but failed to found monthly historical data. Anyone more lucky than me with this? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 13:58, 2 February 2010 (EST)

Archived expeditions
Swept from the pub:

I noticed the Climate expedition has been tagged as historical, with a message that the page is either no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose is no longer clear. I thought the climate expedition page was relevant since the project had met its goals of defining how to present climate information and the guidelines created by the expedition were our MoS, so to speak, for how to present that info. Climate info is included in our articles on a pretty spotty basis right now, but I'd like to see the guidelines developed by the expedition stick around. Are there any objections if I create a policy page based on the climate expedition to include in the MoS? -Shaund (talk) 07:25, 21 October 2012 (CEST) Note (post edit) - here's a (WV-en) draft climate info policy. -Shaund (talk) 08:27, 21 October 2012 (CEST)

 * Including climate details in the Manual of Style (or somewhere, at least) is definitely something we would want to do. That applies to other expeditions which have been archived. Are there any other examples? JamesA  >talk 07:53, 21 October 2012 (CEST)
 * Good point. I'm not sure - quickly looking through the Recent Changes, maybe the Phrasebook Expedition? Possibly the News Expedition, although I think it's on hold until the migration to WMF is complete and we figure out how/if it can be linked to Wikinews. -Shaund (talk) 08:27, 21 October 2012 (CEST)

Weather
Swept from the pub:

I found this on a couple of pages (I remember using on WT). Is this an accepted use template, or is it considered experimental? Gamweb (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

 * Climate Expedition indicates that Template:Forecast is among the acceptable options. At some point we may want to look into integrating and standardizing our weather inclusions, but that would be a discussion for the expedition talk page.  LtPowers (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I like it better nested in the climate table (for space reasons), as it is here. Gamweb, do you mind if I move this to the Expedition talk page? --Peter Talk 19:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Move it wherever you like? Gamweb (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

It would be nice for us to come to a final agreement about how to display our data. I would like to maintain flexibility about what information is displayed, though, as different destinations have different needs. A Northern Lights destination, for example, should display daylight hours, which would be pointless for most destinations. Template talk:Climate shows those options.

My inclination is to recommend using only Template:Climate, and to prescribe it for all bottom-level articles, with the exception of district articles (it should go in the city overview article). --Peter Talk 20:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Smaller destinations (Ellenville) may not have the temperature data readily available to fill in the Template:Climate box. Gamweb (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Copyrighted sources?
This is the other issue to nail down. The temperature data sites for everything outside the U.S. claim copyright over their information, but if the data is factual, that claim seems unsupportable. While it would be good to know for sure where we stand legally, I say let's use the data regardless and see if there ever is a problem. Otherwise our climate data will remain restricted to the U.S. only! --Peter Talk 20:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In the U.S. at least, one cannot copyright data -- only a particular expression of that data. LtPowers (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we can use the data as long as we present it in our own way, which I think we do. I wonder if anyone at Wikidata is working on climate data. --Rogerhc (talk) 02:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Color coding a world map, month by month for temperature, sun and rain?
Hi, What I have been looking for is a simple guide to know where to travel at what month. Would it not be great if we could make a world map with color coding for three different values; temperature, sun hours and rainy days. And then also do that for each month. I first thought it could be one value for each country, but I realize that bigger countries and different climate zones in a country need to be divided.

Maybe it is easiest to start with 3 tables of every country/region of country; temperature, sun hours and rainy days and that each table have 12 columns (one for each month) Once the data is there it would be easier to set limits for different color coding to the map.

What do you say of this idea?

EDIT: I also saw an earlier suggestion for water temperature which I think is a great addition! So 4 different values then.. —The preceding comment was added by Soederman (talk • contribs)

 * Go for it. But please sign your posts.  LtPowers (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Does Birmingham need a climate table
Hey guys, I have entered a heated discussion with Texugo on whether the Birmingham (England) article should have a climate table atop the article in the "Understand" section" or two pics. Texugo said that is was agreed here to put climate tables in the Understand sections, I believe that if there is no "Climate" subheading this table can go pretty much anywhere, and the overall impression of the article and destination is more important than standardized article formatting there (especially that any agreements regarding climate tables seem to be local conventions not anything the whole community had decided to adopt as uniform and to be abided by by all articles).

Your take on that? Do we need the climate table in the article, and do we need it to go above all the photos in the "Understand" section? Is this a convention you perceive as universally binding for WV? PrinceGloria (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

 * Where you can stick it says climate info goes in Understand, and I believe that is the only section where it logically fits thematically. The abovementioned discussion started when I moved the climate box from the Stay safe section way at the bottom of the article to its usual place in Understand. We have always standardized where the various types of info belong so that the traveler can always know where to look to find the info. Otherwise, everytime they open an article, they have to figure out all over again which section has what info. Texugo (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

 * I disagree with you - I don't think enough of our articles have a climate table for people to "intuitively" know where to look for it. More importantly, however, the article in question does not have a climate subsection, just a climate table, which I find redundant. If we ever developed the article to a level in which climate would be discussed and had its own section, I would agree this section would come under "Understand" and thus the table could be added there. Although I would say given its relative importance and the fact that most travellers will use other sites as well to get more precise weather data anyway, it could fit under "Cope" just as well. PrinceGloria (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Does the article have weather info? If so, where is it?
 * You are saying the answer to that depends on whether the info is in table form or not, and that if it is then it could be wherever someone decided to put it? I'm sorry, that is just bizarre. Yes, it could arguably have been standardized under Cope too, but that's just not the standardization choice we have made and put into practice. Texugo (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

 * I am saying that this policy leads to perhaps unforeseen results where in articles with short "Understand" sections and no developed Climate section, the climate table becomes the first and most visible thing in the article, which I believe it should not be. This is why I am calling for more discussion on this policy. I also faintly remember an inconclusive discussion about climate tables sometime ago, and I guess we as community in general are still on the fence regarding those, so let us treat this "policy" as something still under discussion at this point please.
 * I guess we both made our positions clear at that point and it would be great if we both decided to allow others to weigh in and use our creative talents to improve the Birmingham article further. PrinceGloria (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

 * (multiple edit conflicts) I think climate tables are useful, and I've thought about suggesting some sort of a gadget showing current temperature and weather at the destination. Weather and climate is definitely relevant information for visitors.
 * However the current version of the table sometimes tend to be a bit unwieldy and can mess up the Understand section (I've myself on a couple of occasions uttered swear words when trying to shoehorn it in place). I think the climate table doesn't necessarily need to be right at the top of the article, it could equally well be placed in a Cope section. Also, Andrew has experimented with climate tables/templates so maybe he would have a suggestion of a more lightweight version. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

 * My experiment with the WP climate table is almost there. I don't think I would describe it as lightweight, although I think it will be more intuitive than a mass of blue and red numbers. I'll try and finish it soon since it is too early to discuss its adoption in its present state. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, if we're going to include climate data in an article, it needs to be in the correct section. Powers (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

 * Again, why would "Understand" be the correct section. The "Climate" section could be the correct section, and the "Understand" section could be the correct section for the Climate section, but w/o the Climate section why would the table still belong even in the shortest "Understand" section?
 * Do take a look at Birmingham (England) again and see what this leads to. I believe Climate info is important, but not the most important information the traveller should see first. "Cope" seems like a perfect place for it as well. After you've acquainted yourself with the destination and have an idea what you want to see and do, you get some info on the climate in order to know how to COPE with it, what clothes to pack and what weather to expect. How about that?
 * Do also note that out articles are quite top-heavy when it comes to visual garnish. This is actually very important, because the travel guide has to attractive to the reader and easy to chew through. The more even the candy is distributed, the better it looks like and the easier it is to navigate (our eyes catch the visual elements first, long before we manage to read the headings). I believe this should be taken into account as well.
 * As a sidenote, the way the current table looks is just perfect to me - very legible. I would only dream of having it take up less space - perhaps even store the data off-site of the article for it not to blow up the article so much. I thought this was the direction of experimentation. PrinceGloria (talk) 05:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

 * For the record, I think climate information should come early on in the article.
 * In the Birmingham example, I'm not really convinced that the weather in Birmingham is significantly different from anywhere else in England. (And south England is pretty much all the same in this regard from the travelers perspective).
 * Should we not consider actually promoting climate information to Country level for some smaller countries? Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

 * I am with you on that. I believe climate information belongs to regional and country levels (in case of the UK, I wouldn't go as far as country levels, as it seems to me that e.g. Cornwall is different from North England - or Scotland for that matter, depending on how we define "country"). I believe in case of region articles, weather would belong early on. PrinceGloria (talk) 06:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

 * Yes, I did specify 'England' as in a distinct entity from Scotland :)
 * I would say three climate charts on the England page to cover 'Southern', 'Midlands' and 'Northern', as well as a distinct climate chart for Cornwall just because it is the warmest place in the UK. Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

 * I would find this slightly confusing to have more than one climate table and so much climate information in one article. Some general introduction to English climate and a hint of major regional differences would belong in the main article, IMHO, but the detailed descriptions and tables would belong in the nine regional articles that England is further split into, I believe - even if this could be quite repetitive for the regions immediately adjacent. PrinceGloria (talk) 09:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

 * I think one introduction to the English climate is pretty sufficient, yes :) Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

 * A few points:
 * Those of you saying a single introduction to English climate is sufficient appear to be already familiar with it and its variation. As someone who knows nothing about it though, as I'd think many readers would be, I would rather expect to see info about it at least in major cities like Birmingham.
 * I don't think we should ever have multiple climate charts in any given article. If its broken down regionally, there's no reason the details shouldn't be placed lower in the hierarchy.
 * In no case should we accept a new scenario where weather info goes sometimes in Understand and sometimes in Cope, and the existence of a Climate subheader and block of prose really has no bearing on that. No other information type is handled unpredictably; we always use WV:Where you can stick it to standardize what info goes where so that our articles are intuitive and people can always find the info in an expected place, and weather info is no different — it absolutely needs to belong to one section or the other.
 * To me, the Understand section makes much more sense. It's where we talk about the landscape, the wildlife, the best times to visit, and other background info — climate info is background info that fits infinitely better with that stuff than it does with Cope's subsections for haircuts, babysitting, pet care, libraries, consulates, and religious services.
 * Texugo (talk) 11:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

 * I think the point was that there is very little practical variation. London, Birmingham and Bristol are of course not identical in climate, however I do fail to see how a visitor or local would really notice any difference when traveling between them.
 * The multiple climate boxes are probably a bad idea, only suggested by myself as part of the discourse. You may disregard. Andrewssi2 (talk) 12:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

If we believe the reader may be clueless about the weather in Birmingham, a short sentence in the "Understand" section along the lines of "the weather of Birmingham does not differ from the rest of England" would suffice instead of the table IMHO. PrinceGloria (talk) 12:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I was just suggesting that while that may seem obvious to those of you who already know about the country's smaller degree of climate variation, it can still be useful info for someone who doesn't already know, looking at a city for the first time, and when compared with other important city articles that have this info, it may well appear to be a case where the info is simply missing. A solution as PrinceGloria has just suggested, of putting a "disclaimer" note, would seem to be more repetitive and lazier than putting the actual details in, unless all the aspects of winds, precipitation, cloud cover, and temperatures really are practically identical countrywide. Plus the fact that some urban centers are warmer than the surrounding countryside. Is it really accurate enough to just say "the climate of all of England is the same"? Texugo (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not ALL of England, as the coastlines, especially the southern, would have their local variations, and Cornwall, if treated as a part of England, is indeed warmer as Andrew mentioned. I would say "the climate of West Midlands is the same and does not differ majorly from the rest of England". I would also say tourists are not metheorology researchers, so they can be spared "all the aspects of winds, precipitation, cloud cover, and temperatures". They just need to know what clothes to pack and, if they have the choice, when to plan their travel given their plans. PrinceGloria (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a delicate balance between repeating information in multiple articles (something we're advised against) and allowing each article to be self-contained (avoiding the unpleasantness of forcing readers to print/view multiple articles to get all of the information they need). Despite similarities, I believe all major cities should have climate data, even if it is very similar to other nearby major cities.  Powers (talk) 14:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * But why oh why does it need to be climate DATA in the form of a TABLE, and why does it need to sit atop the article? It looks like Birmingham is all about average temperatures. Theory may be perfect, but in practice this guideline leads to situations like that. PrinceGloria (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not understand all the tears you are shedding over this table. Anyway, nobody said it had to be the first thing in the Understand section. Just that it should be there. Texugo (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I think if any change regarding the climate box is needed, it would be to change the template so that it's always aligned all the way to the right, instead of sometimes jumping to the left of other images in certain configurations. Not sure how to fix that though. Texugo (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That is what bothers me - now that you moved the one in Birmingham (England), it ends up colliding with the pic in my browser. Until this is fixed, I would rather put the table only against long paragraphs of text, or abstain from using it completely. PrinceGloria (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. Fixed. Is that better? Texugo (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * At my screen resolution - a lot better. Obrigado! PrinceGloria (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Dynamic temperature graphs
This is not an image, just 100% easy-to-edit JSON text (see source):

{ "version": 2, "width": 400, "height": 200, "data": [ {     "name": "klima", "values": [ {"x":"Jan", "y":23, "bedeut":"tmax"}, {"x":"Feb", "y":25, "bedeut":"tmax"}, {"x":"Mär", "y":29, "bedeut":"tmax"}, {"x":"Apr", "y":35, "bedeut":"tmax"}, {"x":"Mai", "y":39, "bedeut":"tmax"}, {"x":"Jun", "y":41, "bedeut":"tmax"}, {"x":"Jul", "y":41, "bedeut":"tmax"}, {"x":"Aug", "y":41, "bedeut":"tmax"}, {"x":"Sep", "y":39, "bedeut":"tmax"}, {"x":"Okt", "y":35, "bedeut":"tmax"}, {"x":"Nov", "y":29, "bedeut":"tmax"}, {"x":"Dez", "y":24, "bedeut":"tmax"},

{"x":"Jan", "y": 6, "bedeut":"tmin"}, {"x":"Feb", "y": 7, "bedeut":"tmin"}, {"x":"Mär", "y":11, "bedeut":"tmin"}, {"x":"Apr", "y":16, "bedeut":"tmin"}, {"x":"Mai", "y":20, "bedeut":"tmin"}, {"x":"Jun", "y":23, "bedeut":"tmin"}, {"x":"Jul", "y":24, "bedeut":"tmin"}, {"x":"Aug", "y":24, "bedeut":"tmin"}, {"x":"Sep", "y":22, "bedeut":"tmin"}, {"x":"Okt", "y":18, "bedeut":"tmin"}, {"x":"Nov", "y":12, "bedeut":"tmin"}, {"x":"Dez", "y": 8, "bedeut":"tmin"} ]   }  ],  "scales": [ {"name":"x", "type":"ordinal", "range":"width", "domain":{"data":"klima", "field":"x"}}, {"name":"y", "range":"height", "nice":true, "domain":{"data":"klima", "field":"y"}}, {"name":"c", "type":"ordinal", "domain":{"data":"klima", "field":"bedeut"}, "range": ["#800", "#008"]} ], "axes": [ {"type":"x", "scale":"x", "title": "Monat"}, {"type":"y", "scale":"y", "title": "°C"} ], "legends": [ {     "fill": "c", "title": "Bedeutung", "offset": 0, "properties": { "symbols": { "fillOpacity": {"value": 0.5}, "shape": {"value":"square"} }     }    }  ],  "marks": [ {     "type": "symbol", "from": {"data":"klima"}, "properties": { "enter": { "x": {"scale":"x", "field":"x", "offset":16}, "y": {"scale":"y", "field":"y"}, "fill": {"scale":"c", "field":"bedeut"}, "fillOpacity": {"value": 0.5}, "shape": {"value":"square"} },       "update": { "size": {"value":40} }, "hover": { "size": {"value":100} } }   }  ] }

Example stolen from the German Wikivoyage, as you have guessed. If I understand correctly, this too is brought to us by Vega. Cheers! Syced (talk) 08:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

 * Whatever happened to the good ole' climate - diagram according to Walter/Lieth? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

 * This discussion belongs on Climate Expedition but anyway..
 * The Wikipedia Climate chart is actually far superior to the German WV shown above. It is a complex template and I still havn't been able to make it work in Wikivoyage yet, but on my todo list. If anyone else wants to help it is currently at Template:Climate chart
 * --Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

 * I was not aware of this template, sorry for the noise! Syced (talk) 03:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

 * um, no need to be sorry. In any case the template is not ready yet! --Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

 * The small chart shown above was created to show the existence of <graph> tag using the powerful Vega library. My aim was not to present already a final solution because I am not familiar with the Vega chart syntax. The chart templates as used in the Wikipedias would be changed after some time because they could not be printed. For the bars usually div tags with colored backgrounds were used which were omitted in the print. The graph tag will produce a chart image in png or svg format which can be presented at all devices. To get an imagination of the opportunities of the Vega tool please use the Vega editor and choose the example weather chart from list. I think we will have in future a weather chart module which will create the JSON syntax from a list of weather characteristics. And maybe these data are stored in Wikidata, and we are only in need of an Wikidata qid. --RolandUnger (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

 * Thanks RolandUnger, I didn't notice that the color bars didn't actually print in Wikipedia. I just created a PDF printout and it is less aesthetically pleasing as a result, although still more than readable.
 * Happy to look at the Vega editor some more. We need to consider the English WV requirement of displaying everything in fahrenheit as well as celcius. (Since this can be done mathematically, we hopefully don't have to duplicate both measurements in Wikidata) Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

 * Oh why did the only major countries to refuse metrication have to be among the most powerful and influential in the world? Do we also have to give precipitation in inches? Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

 * Well, German Wikivoyage has the advantage that all German speaking countries use the metric system. English Wikivoyage has the unique burden of having everyone in the world as its audience. That said if the US ever gives up its fond attachment to imperial (unlikely) then I'm sure this wouldn't be an issue anymore Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

 * I suspect it might be possible to draw the second vertical axis in Fahrenheit, or have custom text for all the labels based on a formula. Also, make sure you check out Vega tools page - good demos there. --Yurik (talk) 08:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Auto-generated climate data
Creating a climate table takes a while and is error-prone since so many different fields need to be filled out, so I've created an automated tool that will generate a climate table by pulling temperature and precipitation data from the NOAA climate normals dataset (1981-2010) (sorry, US destinations only). It can be accessed at http://mountaininterval.org/wikivoyage/climate.html. I've used it to generate several climate tables without issue (see Culver City, Yellowstone, Everglades, etc) and found it to be useful, but would appreciate feedback - bugs, improvement suggestions, and comments as to whether or not this is useful for others. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have heard somewhere that at least for Germany the climate normal period was from some time in the 1960s or something. Given long term climate trends, this might indeed make a difference... Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not a climate scientist so I can't speak to what the "best" dataset might be, but NOAA uses 30 year intervals to generate their averages, and updates those datasets every decade. Wikipedia is also pulling their climate information from NOAA, although in many cases using the previous 30 year interval (1971-2000), so this dataset seems like an acceptable source. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Inconsistencies between snowfall units and tooltip units.
I have been playing around with using this template for one of the articles (Valais) and found an inconsistency between the unit shown in the table and the one shown (and converted) in the tooltip. While the table shows cm (which is the usual unit for snow afaik), the tooltip will show the same number but with the unit mm and will also convert mm to in instead of cm to in.

I added an example table here to demonstrate that. If I hover over the January snowfall (14.1 cm), it will show in the tooltip 14.1 mm (0.6 in). I tried and opened the code for the template to see whether I can fix it, but didn't manage to. Drat70 (talk) 05:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

 * The simple fix was just to change "cm" to "mm" for the snowfall numbers - Special:Diff/2954849/2968646. That at least gets the data displaying correctly for now, even if millimeters aren't the best unit for snowfall measurements . -- Ryan • (talk) • 06:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

 * thanks! However, won't that break all the pages which already have snowfall data in cm? Drat70 (talk) 06:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

 * I think the template should be reporting snowfall correctly now in centimeters - the solution was a hack I'm not proud of, but it seems to do the trick. -- Ryan • (talk) • 06:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

 * great, thanks a lot! Drat70 (talk) 08:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Climate data - proposal
Hi fellow "wikivoyagers",

1) Useful or not?
 * From my experience, Climate data is essencial for travel planning.
 * Do you think this information is useful and should be included into articles?

2) Opinion and approval
 * I'm asking for your opinion and approval of using Climate data from Weather Atlas (e.g. Dubai) to contribute to Wikivoyage articles,
 * (the same way I'm doing when enhancing articles on Wikipedia with Climate data and citing data source)
 * e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pula#Geography_and_climate

 * (I'm declaring potential Conflict of interest, as I'm beeing involved with a company whose data I'm using.
 * But since I know how many years and effort has been put into collecting and cross-checking data from over 200 sources, I'm trusting this source over any other.)

3) Styling of Climate data
 * Template:Climate has limited predefined options
 * Is using modified "wikitable" to show data accepted option?

 * Thanks for taking the time to read this lengthy proposal,
 * D.Nino (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments
I've added a heading so that comments don't get lost. I like the proposal, and it would be great if you're will to add this information to articles. Looking up the page just a bit, I see a previous proposal that includes precipitation figures, which I think are also important for travellers. Would you be able to modify your chart to include precipitation? A second question would be whether travellers need temperatures to the 0.1°. that seems more precise than is necessary, and the table would be less cluttered if the numbers were founded to the nearest °. Ground Zero (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

 * My preference would be to implement the current Wikipedia template. w:Template:Climate_chart Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

 * My opinion is that table is the best way to present large qty of data.
 * Information is quickly understandable at a glance by anyone.
 * As I've mentioned info can be presented in form of tables with the same style and fields as on Wikipedia
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pula#Geography_and_climate
 * Potential COI and RS is the reason I've asked the community for a verdict ;
 * D.Nino (talk) 05:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * D.Nino (talk) 05:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

 * What's meant with COI and RS? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources
 * D.Nino (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Style of Climate data table now matches Wikipedia Weather box
 * additionally, table has more information (Sea temperature and UV index)
 * D.Nino (talk) 11:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Why do we need all of that information? I think the important things are the basics: High and low temperature, rainfall for the month. Average rainy days per month is helpful but by no means the last word (is it a brief drizzle? a torrential but brief downpour? an enervating moderate rain with low-hanging clouds all day? a torrential monsoon for weeks on end?). Average sea temperature is irrelevant to most places, don't you think? And "Percent possible sunshine" is obscure in meaning (does that mean the number of hours there could be sunlight, purely based on when the sun rises and sets, or does it also take cloud cover into account? and if it has to be defined, it's too encyclopedic). By the way, what about "Mean daily sunshine hours"? Is that purely based on sunrise and sunset? If so, the most user-friendly way to provide this information is simply to give the times for sunrise and sunset (on average) for each month. But again - perhaps useful, but is it essential?

 * The other point is that "Climate" has been treated as a subsection of "Understand" for a long time, never its own section, which I've seen you make it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Hi Ikan Kekek,
 * For all those reasons I've started this topic.
 * Let's say you're considering for a holiday Egypt vs. Spain in June (or September).
 * IMO beside Hi/Lo temperature, sea temperature is very useful. No. of rainy days or daylight hours as well.
 * UV index not so much (for me).
 * It's up to community to decide which data is essential.
 * (Sunshine hours)

 * Here is a list of climate data (if available)

 * Average high temperature
 * Daily mean temperature
 * Average low temperature
 * Average rainfall
 * Average snowfall
 * Average rainy days
 * Average snowy days
 * Average relative humidity
 * Mean daily sunshine hours
 * Mean daily daylight hours
 * Percent possible sunshine
 * Average sea temperature
 * Average UV index

 * cast your vote ; ) —The preceding comment was added by User:D.Nino (talk • contribs)
 * D.Nino (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Since this is an ongoing discussion with clearly no consensus yet, I've undone the additions of the very large and bright table to some of our destinations. My personal opinion is that this is too much information (especially for individual cities) and the formatting and colours don't fit our style at all. Look at the effect of introducing such a table on an article like Pula. It clutters the page. I've left it for now on Las Palmas, since D.Nino would like to have a live example. There's a lot of "useful" information to be found on e.g. Wikipedia that we don't include in our travel guides. We make choices. In that regard, climate is no different from our approach to, say, culture or history of destinations. We give an overview, and there's a link to Wikipedia for those looking for even more detail. JuliasTravels (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Oh, and then there's the question of the external link to the company behind these (copyrighted) data (for which D.Nino is also working - thanks for declaring that coi). I accept that this may be a reliable source, but introducing that external link in every destination article is really against our policy. JuliasTravels (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Hi JuliasTravels, I totaly understand, and as I've already stated it's up to community to reach an agreement on weather this data is useful for travellers.
 * Obviously climate/weather is important. Otherwise there would not be this page nor this topic.
 * So, I suggest this discussion should be on what kind of information is esential, and, in what form info should be presented.
 * I admit on Las Palmas page colored table seams over the top, (it might be better on the bottom of the page), but Climate info goes "under" Understanding.
 * (IMO tiny link in navigation to Wikipedia is not a proper way to present useful infomation to visitors)
 * D.Nino (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Regarding External links - (as with declaring COI), I understand the policy.
 * But I assumed that reliability and stating the source is important. Also I've seen in Climate table template link to source.
 * D.Nino (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It is, particularly when you want to use a source that's not in the public domain. Even when you mention the source, it's somewhat questionable to use and publish those data on large scale under our own free license when there are open alternatives, since that could violate the copyrights of your company (although bare facts are not copyrightable). In any case, "free" sources have the preference, usually. The example you mention, of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, is in the public domain. JuliasTravels (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Quite apart from this important discussion of copyright and external links, my feeling is that facts like sea temperature are useful, but only in a limited number of cases. That means that including them in every climate chart is excessive, and that information on such facts and figures should be provided on an as-needed basis. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Thanks JuliasTravels for clarification.
 * As I've declared in COI my affiliation with Weather Atlas, I can state that company is willing to legally provide Climate data free of charge, for citing source of information.
 * It's up to Wikivoyage community to decide if proposal is beneficial, weather this data is needed and in what form data should be presented.
 * And thanks again for involving in this matter. - :D.Nino (talk)

 * I appreciate the effort, but frankly this is precisely why we link to the corresponding Wikipedia article in order to provide this level of general factual information. For the traveler I believe an easy to glance graphical representation is better, such as the format below: Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Hi Andrewssi2, thanks for participating in this discussion.
 * 1) I agree with your styling and data remark.
 * After being involved with Wikivoyage for while, I've realized that reasoning "if Wikivoyage resembles Wikipedia, and tables are constructed in identical way, appearance should be similar." - is wrong.
 * Wiki(encyclo)pedia's and Wikivoyage's philosophy are different.
 * To oversimplify: 'pedia collects information while citing sources, whereas 'Voyage is creating travel guide based on experience of editors, both trying to present info in neutral way.
 * Another reason (why I thought presenting full data on users is good) is "professional deformation". For me seeing weather data is like an X-Ray, where even a change of pressure and wind direction is significant. But, I've realized, for average traveller - this amount of data might not be that useful.
 * On the other hand, I still think, that beside temperature and precipitation, sea temperature and daylight/sunshine hours are very useful.
 * (And of course data should be presented in both units)
 * 2) Regarding the link to the corresponding Wikipedia article for additional information: IMO tiny link in left hand navigation to Wikipedia is not a proper way to present useful information, also Climate section loses it's values if insufficient information is provided.
 * D.Nino (talk) 12:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

 * As for the link to Wikipedia; you'll find that quite a few of us agree that that link is too small to be found for average readers and other (e.g. in-text links) would be better. However, as you can see on Wikivoyage talk:Links to Wikipedia this has repeatedly been a very long and difficult discussion; if you want to get into this, you should probably be aware of the history. That said, last year we did include a tiny Wikipedia-link icon in our listings template. If the general consensus is that additional climate data (like sea temperature and daylight hours) are really all that important for the average traveller, something similar could be constructed in our climate template, I suppose. Personally, I rather doubt something like daylight hours is a deciding factor for travellers. If you're in a nice, warm and dry climate, the fact that the sun goes down or it's a bit cloudy doesn't change much unless you're only going to tan; you can still go places or sit outside all night. I could imagine sunlight hours are relevant for typical beach destinations, but much less so for a place like Fez. JuliasTravels (talk) 12:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

 * D.Nino - I did not say we should use the Wikipedia style chart just because we should copy Wikipedia. I said it because it is far more useful for a traveler to quickly consume the relevant climate of a destination. A massive dump of numbers in a table does not serve the traveler at all, even if it pleases the climate scientist types. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Conclusion

 * Hey JuliasTravels, all points are well taken. Since start of this discussion I've understood editors' POV.
 * You, Ikan Kekek and other are well travelled, and undoubtedly more experienced on issues regarding Wikivoyage, and I will honor your opinion.
 * If I may conclude - style and necessary data should be provided only for options that are already allowed in Template:Climate and on a case by case basis. (example doesn't have real values)
 * (additional benefit of using standard template is future potential automatic conversion of units, not just on hover)
 * After establishing that Climate data is useful, what data is useful, and in what form it should be presented, the only issue is whether it is allowed to contribute to articles by providing Climate data (and citing source or forecast like in the example)
 * I would like to thank everyone for participating and taking this proposal into consideration.
 * D.Nino (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That looks like a very useful table. Thanks Ground Zero (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for stating your opinion. After long discussion, the only remaining thing is for admins (and other experienced contributors) to decide whether it should be implemented. D.Nino (talk) 16:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to make this crystal clear; decisions here are made by consensus, not admin fiat. Admins don't get more of a say on policy decisions over here. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Tnx Hobbitschuster for sharing that. (I knew that vaguely)
 * What is the process of voting on some issue? (I couldn't find specific article on Decision-making process)
 * I thought about pinging admins (active in last few months) or recently most active users - to state their opinion? (although it seemed too obtruding) D.Nino (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There will be no vote on this, simply the discussion above. A consensus is not a majority but a supermajority. We don't have a consensus for your proposal at this time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, if that's the verdict.
 * I thought purpose of the discussion was exploring all possibilities prior to vote, not for gaining consensus.
 * Thank you Ikan Kekek and everyone who participated.
 * D.Nino (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * A consensus can still be achieved, and consensus does not have to mean unanimity, but you'll have to make the case. Having votes would sooner or later lead to dissatisfaction with the group that loses any given vote. Plus, consensus based policies have an easier time getting accepted. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Hobbitschuster, thanks again for guiding me, but as much as I'd like to make a case, I don't want to.
 * I thought I'd make a proposal, everyone interested would present their opinion, and decision (of course not necessarily in favor of the proposal) would be made.
 * Instead I feel like an intruder pushing something against the community's interest. (and certainly that's not my intention).
 * Perhaps sometime in the future this proposal (or variation of) might become useful for (required) majority.
 * D.Nino (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

 * D.Nino - just to be clear, noone here should think that you are an 'intruder'. I personally do not support the presentation of climate data this way, but that should by no means indicate that anyone is against your desire to improve Wikivoyage. If anything it demonstrates that we need more discussion around this. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

 * D.Nino, you're no more an "intruder" than anyone else here, and your proposal is welcome; it simply does not have consensus support at this time. That could change in the future with more discussion, but even if not, on Wikis, you win some and you lose some, and then you move on to do other things to improve the site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Is there anything stopping me from copying climate data in Wikipedia?
Pyongyang has climate data. Pyongyang does not. I am interested in writing a tool to transform the climate tables in Wikipedia into a Wikivoyage template (copying across the references and making a note that its derived from the Wikipedia article). Is there anything stopping me from doing this policy-wise? Jdlrobson (talk) 21:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Can't answer your question definitively, but can say that it's probably fine, there are no licensing problems as long as there's a note of attribution, but there's no need to copy across the references, as we don't use them here. ARR8 (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Based on previous practice: No, there's nothing stopping you. Just make sure to include a link to your Wikipedia source, as you plan to do. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've setup a tool on wmflabs. Right now, you need to manually edit the URL with where you want to seek climate data from. Testing appreciated! I've been carefully filling in some blanks, checking my script is extracting correctly. Jdlrobson (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems the source isn't showing up. The climate box immediately above this section has a source, and puts it in a parameter called 'description'. You may want to adjust the API to use description over source, and change over the existing ones if possible. Also, maybe it would be preferable to change the text of the link to hide 'w:', or otherwise make it clear the data is from Wikipedia. Otherwise, very useful tool! ARR8 (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, if this is the final URL and you intend this for use by others, I think it would be a great addition to the external tools at wv:Maintenance panel. ARR8 (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

 * thanks for the feedback! I'll tweak that in my next iteration. I'm hoping to get a form up and running that makes importing climate tables super easy to save the url editing! Jdlrobson (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Climate Info
I am currently editing an article for a city in the U.S, that doesnt have a station in the national weather service, should I use the climate info for the nearest station (while that station is in another city which has its own article here, which has its climate listed.)? Someonehere12345 (talk) 04:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

 * Do you know enough about the area to know that the nearby city's weather is similar? If so, I'd use it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * (putting my hat on as a trained Canadian climatologist) Yes it is reasonable to use the nearest station but only if the elevation, geographical features (e.g. facing the same side of the river/large lake) are similar. Care should be taken on precipitation as they vary a lot over shorter distance than temperature. Can you tell us which city you're writing about and which city's station you're trying to borrow the weather data from? OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You could also just characterize the climate in words and possibly refer the reader to the "Climate" subsection of the relevant region article, if it has one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am writing the article for Carrollton,VA. The National Weather Service doesnt have a station in Carrollton. But they do have a station in the next town over being Newport News, secpificly the airport, which is about 15 miles away from Carrollton. But although it is the next town over, Newport News is on the other side of the James River Bridge, and is elevated 7 feet lower then Carrollton. Someonehere12345 (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Elevation won't be an issue (7 ft = 2.1 metres). Our rule-of-thumb is a maximum difference of 5 metres (16 ft). After comparing the climate normals data between Norfolk, Newport News and Wakefield, I don't think the opposite shores of Chesapeake Bay would have large difference. Wakefield appears to be colder in daily minimum (by 1C/3F) and wetter (10 mm/0.4 in) per month than Newport News. Carrollton is probably somewhere in the middle. For presenting a general picture of the climate on a climate chart? I would say it's close enough to use Newport News. OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I used the Newport News climate. Someonehere12345 (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Wikivoyage talk:Climate Expedition


text:
Wikivoyage talk:Featured collaboration

Collaboration of the month - January 2019
Guide articles should preferably including a map with point-of-interest markers. Currently there are 285 [&depth=10&categories=See_listing_with_no_coordinates&comb%5Bunion%5D=1&templates_yes=guidecity&show_redirects=no&doit=1 guide status cities having See listings with no coordinates], and 68 [&depth=10&categories=See_listing_with_no_coordinates&comb%5Bunion%5D=1&templates_yes=guidedistrict&show_redirects=no&doit=1 guide status districts having See listings with no coordinates]. Please help with this month's cotm to improve the quality and usefulness of this site. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Good collaboration; however, the catscan does not take into account that sometimes we don't want coordinates for a listing. Often there are multiple listings for rooms of the same building, or parts of different buildings on the same site. These show up on the catscan as having listings without coordinates, but actually there is nothing wrong with them. Not a major issue, just something to remember while adding coordinates. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk | contributions ) 03:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That is why there is the possibility in a listing to enter "NA" (not applicable) in the lat and long parameters to stop generating a false check. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's useful to know, thanks! --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk | contributions ) 13:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to stop alternating between destinations and maintenance categories
Considering the success of the recent COTM, I think we should no longer do destination COTMs every 2 months, if at all. It's becoming clearer and clearer that they don't work as well as maintenance categories. Therefore, I think that starting in late 2019 (when we have spaces) we should do more maintenance categories (if that's an appropriate name for them) as COTMs and fewer destinations. How do other contributors feel about this possible change?

(Maintenance categories are in an above section called "clean-up categories" — that's probably a better word.) --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 17:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am under the same impression and support the suggestion. Perhaps we can make exceptions in special circumstances, such as the November 2017 COTM to get the Cape Town article in shape for Wikimania 2018, but in general I believe that "maintenance-COTMs" are preferable to COTMs focusing one some specific article. MartinJacobson (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I think it's fine if we still do some destination COTMs, but I think there should more of the other kind because they are generally more successful. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 18:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll support this proposal. I used to be involved in destination COTMs early on but like many of the editors have lost interest. I still enjoy improving destination articles generally but not as part of a COTM. This will make COTM more productive overall. Maybe to start things off, for the next 12 months we can aim for 8 maintenance COTMS and 4 destinations. A 2:1 ratio and not an extreme change. Or 9 maintenance and 3 destinations. Gizza ( roam ) 08:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this makes sense. I like the idea of destination COTMs, but I have to admit the other kind seem to be more successful. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think either a 2:1 ratio or a 3:1 ratio would be better than the current format. I'll update the cotm chart accordingly. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 15:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So now, starting around mid-2019, there's a 2:1 ratio in the schedule. I moved Antarctica to November 2019 to achieve this, and I also added "custom banners - park articles" to the schedule. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 15:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It does appear this activity is better suited to small fixes across the site rather than improving a specific destination. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Enthusiasm for location collaboration appears to have stalled. Unless any objections suggest we change the schedule to only cover maintenance category tasks. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed; that seems like the best course to take. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 15:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Collaboration of the month for July
cotm to look and fix inconsistencies between Wikivoyage and Wikidata geo coordinates is coming along well. All city article coordinates have been fixed (was a good number in the wrong location) and most of the park article. Could do we a little more input on the region articles though. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Collaboration of the month - August 2019
Some help is being requested for cotm. With over 100 guide articles with links shown as numbers it is going to take effort from a number of contributors to make these articles look more presentable. What we are talking about is this type of edit. --Traveler100 (talk) 04:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Noticed a number of listings using the phoneextra= parameter that does not work. Numbers when valid should be added to phone= with a comma separator. Have added the search option to this months cotm list. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

2020 Nominations and Upcoming
I have added a number of project to Collaboration_of_the_month, only a suggestion, any other ideas or alternative priorities for 2020? --Traveler100 (talk) 06:56, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * IMHO, collaborations aren't going badly at the moment. I'll do some work on finding pagebanners now in the current COTM. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 17:41, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Traveler100 and COTMs
It suddenly occurred to me that we haven't seen much of Traveler100 or COTMs lately. I checked Special:Contributions/Traveler100 and he hasn't edited here since January.

Without Traveler100, we need someone new to manage changing over COTMs each month and the will to do COTMs, which I don't see at the moment. Should we abandon our COTMs? Or do people want to continue them? --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 14:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

 * I personally don't participate in cotm, but have absolutely no problem with others continuing it if they wish to.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

 * Anyone can manage any project on this site. SelfieCity, if you'd like to start a Cotm, go ahead! Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I’d definitely do it, but I first would want to make sure that there are people willing to participate. Thanks for the mention, though! --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 17:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've set up the COTM schedule once again, and extended the first one an extra month (late March and April) due to the work required on that COTM in particular. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 14:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Restored COTM
Starting in January 2020, our COTM had been abandoned. I have now restored it with the March collaboration. For those of us who do COTM projects, let's work on reducing the number of poorly formatted links on Wikivoyage. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 17:24, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

 * Volte face time for me. Having said at Talk:COTM that collaboration of the month doesn't do anything for me, making sure all links are frontlinks is of interest to me, so I'll be joining in.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

One question I have is that COTM says "1262 ... articles" — where can we find the information necessary to change this number? If no-one knows, we might as well remove that statistics, since the collaborated effort is reducing the number and therefore making it inaccurate. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 12:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

 * I guess we can follow the link and see how many results there are. Currently 1192. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have used that method to find out how much each has decreased since the numbers were added by Traveler100. It's coming along quite well. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 14:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

 * I believe Travel Man may have used categories for some of his lists as well (for future months' collabs). --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, by categories you mean? --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 16:49, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Special: Categories. So T100 might, for instance use Category: Pages with broken file links to know which pages have links which need fixing, and how many. Make sense? ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that makes sense. Thanks. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 18:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want to see a list of categories at the bottom each page, Go to the Appearances tab in Preferences, and select "Show hidden categories". This can be useful for checking that your edit has fixed the issue. AlasdairW (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Conversion templates
For those who are interested, this month's collaboration is conversion templates. Statements like "75° Fahrenheit" would be converted to the format using. Per Wikivoyage talk:Measurements fractions should not be converted to the templates. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 15:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hold up. I certainly appreciate the efforts to keep the fire burning over at cotm, but for accessibility reasons vis-a-vis new editors, Wikivoyage has always preferred to use templates as sparingly as possible, as elucidated at Wikivoyage talk:Using MediaWiki templates and elsewhere. Any sitewide action that consists of wantonly replacing ordinary prose with templates needs to be cleared through a community-wide consensus at the pub and/or the relevant policy page, not merely a consensus at CotM that consists of three support votes, two of which are from no-longer-active users. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Definitely. See below. (As a note, only one of the support votes comes from an inactive user.) --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 16:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I have often used conversion templates such as Template:Fahrenheit to convert fahrenheit to celsius, etc. Apparently, though these templates are not labeled with the experimental template despite having long been on the website but have only once been approved in consensus — at the cotm nomination. Therefore, it's necessary to decide whether or not we should use these templates. See cotm for more information. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 16:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As someone who's pretty useless at templates, I find the conversion templates easy to use. I am sympathetic to minimising the use of templates and think that the French Wikivoyage has gone too far down that particular rabbit hole, to the extent where there are indeed templates by the bunny-load. That wiki looks prettier, but it's not as user-friendly as this one. But, I do think the conversion templates are more user-friendly than doing the calculation externally (Google search or calculator). So, while I support the request to have a discussion, I also support the wider use of conversion templates.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Here's my position on the matter. I'm not opposed to the existence of the conversion template. It should be available for editors who want to use it. I've used it myself in a number of articles. But its use should definitely not be required, nor (this is the clause germane to the proposed CotM) should its use be considered the Wikivoyage default. In the section above, I spelled out the accessibility issues with overuse of templates, but there are also reasons unrelated to accessibility why a user might want to stick with prose; one I can think of off the top of my head is that when a writer is using round numbers to convey the fact that he's approximating, it looks odd to give an exact conversion when the number in the other system is not round. (This happened to me when copyediting the Birmingham (Alabama) article in advance of its DotM stint; I remember writing something like "average high temperatures in summer are around 100°F (40°C)" and it was remarked that the Celsius equivalent to 100°F is actually 38°C. I replied that the operative word in what I wrote is "around"; both of those numbers remain approximately accurate even if the conversion isn't exact.) I'm fine with the conversion template being used where appropriate and even with encouraging its wider use, but I think going back and retroactively changing other editors' prose to templates is a bridge too far in this case. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that in cases where no conversion is given, it's useful to add a conversion, whether through a template or through regular text. (Especially for destinations in the United States, whose Fahrenheit system is more unfamiliar to people from Celsius-using countries than vice versa.) In cases where a conversion is given in text, I don't think it does any good to convert it to a template. Doing so carelessly can also introduce issues—AndreCarrotflower gave one example; another more subtle case is where a sentence says something like "Temperatures vary by as much as 30 degrees Fahrenheit". —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The proposal is specifically:
 * "a COTM to turn text like "25 km" or "3 miles" into conversion templates, like or ."
 * This is a win for readers who understand the metric system or Imperial measures but not both. WV:the traveller comes first.
 * It does not propose to change text where the conversion is provided, such as "around 100°F (40°C)".
 * Let's stick to discussing the merits of the proposal. Ground Zero (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have adjusted the language at cotm to clarify your point. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 16:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) You can get the same effect with convert, though:   will give you 100 F. (edit: And to Granger's point, for converting a range or difference in temperature, that's supported too:   will give you 30 F-change.)
 * There's undoubtedly a balance to be struck between using fewer templates (which makes things easier for unskilled editors) and using more templates (which encourages uniformity, encodes intent in semantic markup, and enables features such as making pages more accessible [e.g. for screen readers]). But isn't this part of the advantage of a wiki, that not every editor needs to be skilled with templates? If you want to write prose, go ahead. If someone else wants to upgrade it to use [approved] templates, they can also do so. On WP I frequently reformat existing prose to use w:Template:Nihongo and similar language templates, and would be doing so here if we had an equivalent template. --Bigpeteb (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize the template was so versatile. That's great. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Given the clarification Ground Zero provided, I no longer oppose implementation of this CotM, with the caveat that when participants encounter a figure that's round, i.e. one that ends in a 0 or a 5, please first assess whether it's intended as an approximation, and if so, convert in prose to the nearest round number in the other system, rather than with the template.

 * To Bigpeteb's comment: as ThunderingTyphoons! pointed out, the conversion template in its most straightforward form is simple enough even for those who are otherwise uncomfortable with using templates, but when you add extra arguments whose existence and/or purpose is not immediately obvious, like the "-1" or "-change" business at the end, that's when you venture into user-unfriendly territory. I consider myself pretty handy with templates - I've figured my way around Template:Mapframe, for instance - and much like Granger, I didn't know those capabilities was built into the conversion template until just now. When even experienced editors like Granger and me aren't familiar with the full range of uses of a particular template, that's a problem.

 * As for "if you want to write prose, go ahead; if someone else wants to upgrade it to use [approved] templates, they can also do so", the operating principle Wikivoyage follows is that when content is converted from newbie-friendly prose to sometimes newbie-unfriendly templates, the chances of that text being edited at any time in the future become correspondingly smaller, even if updates are necessary to maintain accuracy. For instance, in the example you provided, suppose a third user comes along wanting to edit that same content and, thanks to the second user, now has a template to deal with. Is that third user unfamiliar with how to use MediaWiki templates? Will the need to learn put him off editing that content? Could the article potentially be stuck with inaccurate or outdated information as a result? These are all distinct possibilities.

 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

 * Is there now a consensus to continue this cotm with explanations added as having been clarified in this discussion? --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 17:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

 * Yes, I think so. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay. I will update the page to reflect the above. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 18:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ — see cotm. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 18:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

[outdent] That was quick. Consensus 2 hr after the discussion was started! On Walpurgis night! That was just convincing one (or a few) users, not getting a "community-wide consensus".

I am not convinced. The example above on changing 3 mi to "3 mi (4.8 km)" is certainly something that should not be done in one minute, but requires understanding the context. I'd usually make it "3 mi (5 km)". I do use the templates, but I try to consider where they are useful and where they mostly add noise. If the (approximately) same numbers are repeated, I think converting every occurrence is overkill, unless the exact figures are important. Likewise e.g. in some cases where the figure itself is not the point.

I sometimes use convert, but I have to look it up every single time. Here I agree with AndreCarrotflower: is obvious, at least if you can see the result, and perhaps 5 km, but the more complex variants should be used very sparingly.

I might not make further comments for some days.

–LPfi (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

 * Consensus doesn't mean the agreement of every single Wikivoyage editor. This was a sort of "emergency," as we briefly had a cotm that was going against consensus. That seems to be resolved now.
 * I'm not sure I understand the "context" to which you refer. Sure, some context helps, but surely the editor doesn't need to read whole paragraphs just to know that it's not a rounded conversion or a changing value rather than a temperature. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 20:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

 * If one calls for a wider community discussion and it is closed in two hours, that is odd. There are certainly regulars who did not log in tonight. Are you sure this cotm is not still going against consensus? Or rather, that there might not yet be a consensus about doing this – and that it could be done in a better way if we gather some more understanding about the role of the figures in different contexts.

 * [some too wordy explanations about "context"]

 * But now I wish you a good night. I hope I got some of my message across, although I am not in the mood of thinking carefully about guidelines for this project and finding good examples. I am still just trying to use the emergency brake. If I am the only one who was not part of a consensus, then do as you might. I really try to keep away from this for some days.

 * -- LPfi (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The C and F templates are relatively self-explanatory, and are a useful way to present the temperature in both scales. But generally I think we should use only as many templates as needed (and not mimick for example fr-WV where they are using a template for everything that can be put into a template – heure, prix and what have you). Templates, while practical, make wikicode harder to read and edit, particularly for new users. --Ypsilon (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to suggest that there was community-wide consensus for this cotm; I just meant that there seemed to be consensus among the people who had participated in the discussion. In the past we haven't usually required community-wide consensus for collaborations, just consensus at the cotm page. (Usually successful cotm proposals don't turn out to be this controversial!) There appears to be community consensus that Template:convert etc. is permissible, based on Measurements.
 * I'll reiterate the suggestion I made at the cotm page, which is that we postpone this collaboration and do something less controversial this month. That'll give us time to see if there's community-wide consensus and solidify exactly what the scope of the collaboration should be. It seems to me there's no harm in swapping this collaboration with a different one in the calendar. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Accordingly, I've adjusted the cotm schedule so that this month is "style fixes." I did it, quite conveniently, just after 24:00 UTC, which is when the COTM should be changed anyway. I had to do some rescheduling because the June 2020 collaboration was roughly the same as March/April, but I think this will work well.
 * It's been an interesting start to the COTM's second (no, third, fourth, fifth?) revival, but hopefully things will become smoother after this. At least we have achieved more interest in the COTM than ever before! --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 00:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Style fixes
There's a problem with the "task" section of the new cotm: I can't load the links to examples of style tags within articles. Does anyone have an idea what's gone wrong here? --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 00:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

 * I've been having trouble with Petscan links lately too. Not sure what the problem is, maybe something to do with the WMF's servers. The alternative is to use the category page, I guess. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks! --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 10:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit/update articles about article templates?
We're currently working on language for a draft of a Rural area article template. However, when I made these edits, I was partly referencing Big city article template, which also had some terribly outdated listing formatting and very stilted language. I've already made these edits to the big city template article, but what this exercise has made clear to me is that there is likely to be stilted language and obsolete formatting throughout the suite of articles about article templates.

Would fixing this be a good task for a Cotm? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. I’m thinking August might be a good month, as dead links (July’s COTM) are really important as mentioned in the pub. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 00:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

New Cotm to mention places of interest in region articles?
Per discussion at Travellers' pub, should we have a Cotm on making sure the most interesting places in each region are mentioned in each region article, with links to full listings in the relevant local guides? We could schedule it for June, since we're already 1/4 of the way into May, but I may get started later today. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This sounds like a really worthwhile collaboration. Is there a way of generating a list of region articles that suck to give editors a list to work on? Ground Zero (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. I can start work on that soon and post it here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Or maybe I'll leave it here. Please help. It will be a big job to look through all the articles in Category:Region articles, even while restricting our attention to the "See" and "Do" sections for the time being. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you mind if I add some articles to User:Ikan Kekek/Bad region articles? I'll try and create list similar to User:SHB2000/outline articles, which gives an insight on which articles have a low byte count (which probably has many empty sections). SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 06:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Please! It's a really monumental task to look through all the articles in the region category! Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I added a few – are those the kinds of articles which would be considered problematic? -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 07:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:03, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

The last COTM was in June 2020, so I suggest that you just put this on the COTM page, and notify people in the Pub that this is underway. No need to wait until June. Ground Zero (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

 * and to anyone else following this discussion.
 * After one week of adding over 2000 links, I've finally finished User:SHB2000/outline articles/regions. What this allows you to do is to sort articles by byte size – while byte size alone is not indicative of an article's state, a region article with a low byte count is often bound to have many empty sections (if not everything apart from the "Cities" section); that was also how I was able to find some egregious cases of bad region articles like Pando or Northwest (Minas Gerais). Any feedback for improving this will be appreciated! SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 08:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

 * Wow, that's really impressive! Thanks for doing all of that! I'm sorry I've gotten off track from that work. I'll try to look more at region articles tomorrow. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Not a problem,, and there's no need to apologize! It wasn't much work, nor did it require a lot of template skills (I carried over the template I used from a previous list of a similar kind) – it was just the many command Cs and command Vs... I hope this does help, though :-). -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 11:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I've tackled a few from Ikan Kekek's list, and noted this. Which list are we going to use? Ground Zero (talk) 11:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

 * Preferably Ikan's list – my semi-automated list is meant to aid Ikan's list by making it easier to find the more problematic region articles. Thanks for your improvements to Eastern Kenya and Cornwall County, though :-). I'll be sure to join in and expand some of these once I've made User:Ikan Kekek/Bad region articles more comprehensive. SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 11:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

 * I added a few more to that list. This is an absolutely huge job. I'm nowhere remotely close to finishing articles starting with the letter "A." And this work requires proposals of merges and deregionalization. It's really a very daunting task. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I've proposed to make this the first "Featured collaboration ". See wv:Featured collaboration. Ground Zero (talk) 02:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. It's on the main page. Ground Zero (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Re-launching this project
The "Collaboration of the month" project has become inactive, with no updates since 2020. I think that focused collaborations are still useful, but it seems unrealistic to expect that they will get completed in a month, and that this page will be update every month.

I propose to replace COTM with "Featured collaboration", under which a collaboration would not have a maximum time limit.

Ground Zero (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Any user would be able to propose a featured collaboration, which would be discussed for a minimum of two weeks.
 * If after two weeks, there are no major objections, the collaboration would be featured for a minimum of a month.
 * After one month, it could be replaced by a new collaboration that has been discussed on the talk page for at least two weeks.
 * If a collaboration is completed without a new one being proposed, it would be removed and there would be no Featured collaboration.
 * Now I only actively joined the community in 2021, so I don't know how COTMs used to work, but this works – the collab on abysmal region articles will take several months to complete, if not years. -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 11:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've made this change. Ground Zero (talk) 02:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Good to see this returning, as unfortunately there just hasn't been enthusiasm for it in recent years. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 18:56, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Re-launching the Collaboration of the month project
The "Collaboration of the month" project has become inactive, with no updates since 2020. I think that focused collaborations are still useful, but it seems unrealistic to expect that they will get completed in a month, and that this page will be update every month.

I propose to replace COTM with "Featured collaboration", under which a collaboration would not have a maximum time limit. Please comment at Wikivoyage talk:Collaboration of the month. Ground Zero (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have had only one response, which isn't much feedback, but I'll interpret that as "no objection" from the community and proceed in a couple of days. Ground Zero (talk) 00:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Editorial assistance in dying
This attempt to restart collaborative projects did not succeed. The featured collaboration did not receive support from other editors. I propose to end this experiment, archive this page, and remove links from the main page, etc. Ground Zero (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. We can hopefully inspire writers in other ways. /Yvwv (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sad, but I guess it is what it is. -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 07:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 20:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Were there attempts to get featured collaboration since the name change? When was the last time? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * -- there were two proposals made on the project page, but neither has been pursued. Ground Zero (talk) 11:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess I still think there may be a basis for reviving this at some point. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I am proposing to archive it, so that it can be revived, not to delete it. It should be featured on the Community Portal since it is not an active project page.  Ground Zero (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

 * As someone who is relatively new to this wiki: I do not really feel invited to participate by this page. Quite the contrary: it looks intimidating. Some thoughts:
 * The current featured collaboration is a long, long list that goes over multiple screens. The few comments of people who have been doing things are formatted in the same way as the tasks that still need to be done, so at a glimpse they look like even more work. The improved articles come at the bottom, but with comments like "Empty "See and Do" section" still attached to the list items, that l I know Wikivoyage has a template allergy, but what's wrong with putting a friendly ✅ next to completed tasks?
 * If it looks dead it will soon be dead. Projects just sitting around with nobody working on them and stale discussion are the opposite of inviting. If a proposed collaboration has not gathered enough momentum for people to start working on it after a few months, better archive the whole section and make space for something new. If a "current featured collaboration" does not actually attract contributions after a while or participation dies down before it's finished, just abort and clear out the space. There doesn't need to be an active collaboration at all times. Don't force it, having no collaboration is more inviting than having a stale one.
 * TL;DR: Clean out the page, but keep it around so it's ready to go when someone comes up with a good idea. --El Grafo (talk) 09:50, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that Featured collaboration can seem very alienating. At the very least, removing can help ease things a bit. --  SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 10:08, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I temporarily commented the section out – but it still looks very intimidating. Maybe some added minimalist boxes to make it more appealing and welcoming? -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 10:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I have archived the last featured collaboration, and commented out the link from the Main Page as this project is not active. Ground Zero (talk) 01:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've commented it out from Community portal too. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Wikivoyage talk:Featured collaboration


text:
Wikivoyage talk:Comments in image files

Is this really a useful article? I'd say most contributors use Windows, and there is not much info about it. (WT-en) Riggwelter 05:22, 22 July 2006 (EDT)

 * I don't know how useful this kind of information is, but if the problem is that there's missing information, the best solution would be to add that. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 07:33, 22 July 2006 (EDT)

 * I concur. My remark is intended to bring attention to the case. (WT-en) Riggwelter 16:30, 23 July 2006 (EDT)

title: Wikivoyage talk:Comments in image files