Talk:Climate of Vancouver

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2017
"Most huge snowfall days (25 cm or more)" seems unlikely, citation link is also broken. I lived in metro vancouver for the past 27 years and it just seemed really weird that we could be "well above" calgary and toronto for huge snowfall days. It doesn't snow very often in vancouver and most of the time its just a few cm of snow that gets washed away within a week or so, and I've always heard of toronto and calgary being much more cold/snowy. Especially weird since in the previous sentence environment canada ranked vancouver as 3rd place amongst lowest snowfall of 100 major cities in canada and I'm willing to bet toronto and calgary aren't number one and two. Maybe I misunderstood the sentence and well above toronto and calgary means we have many fewer huge snowfall days than them? but the way I read it, it seemed like it was saying vancouver had many more huge snowfall days than them which would be a pretty interesting fact since the perception (and 27 years of experience) of vancouver is rainy instead of snowy, but when I tried to check the link it said page not found. tried to post in "edit source" on talk page but i got no idea how wikipedia works so hopefully someone sees this.


 * edit i hope: "it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format." is the reply i got. Is this an automated thing or what? Really hope it wasn't someone reading this because it seems they lack basic reading comprehension. I did see to put x y blah blah when I was posting but the post is pretty clear.

1. it doesn't snow much in vancouver 2. most huge snowfall days sentence in the snow section seemed questionable 3. tried to click the citation link "23" but it is broken/page not found 4. change most huge snowfall days part to fucking deleted or post a citation link that works.........duh

Just1put1a1name1 (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  18:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * You're right, the section you point to isn't very clear. It doesn't help that the reference link is dead. I just edited to make it only slightly better (I hope), short of actually rewriting it. The thing is that "Most huge snowfall days (25 cm or more)" refers to days at a climate station in a city where it snowed more than 25 cm between 12:00am and 11:59pm on a single day. For this statistic Vancouver is a little ahead of Toronto and Calgary, I imagine largely due to the large rain systems that come in in the wintertime that sometimes combine with cold arctic air from the north which allows for a lot of snow to fall quickly. The stat for Vancouver is 0.13 days per year average with this much snow. (Go to the "days with snowfall" section to see this number.) That works out to once every 7.7 years where a single day will see that much snow in Vancouver. To compare, the Toronto airport sees 0.07 days per year with this much snow fall in a single day. That works out to once every 14.3 years. For Calgary that number is 0.10 days per year which is obviously once every 10 years. What you're probably getting tripped up on is that Calgary and Toronto receive a lot more snow overall and those cities perhaps see 25 cm on the ground from a single or succession of snowfalls or even from drifting/blowing snow much more often, just not within the 12:00-11:59 time frame from which this statistic was generated. I hope this helps.


 * PS. if you have a reply, put it below mine so it's easier for me to follow and read. Thanks. Air.light (talk) 03:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Climate of Vancouver. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140411003308/http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=25b2959c-2679-4b25-95b3-5aa376fa3c1a to http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=25b2959c-2679-4b25-95b3-5aa376fa3c1a
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070313175605/http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2277e4c8-e3c6-4f78-9841-24e3ce7538b3&k=24902&p=1 to http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2277e4c8-e3c6-4f78-9841-24e3ce7538b3&k=24902&p=1
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120716140649/http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/News/2006/12/18/2858488-sun.html to http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/News/2006/12/18/2858488-sun.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131020212626/http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=bf75c9a2-12cf-488b-95a1-5b349e856091 to http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=bf75c9a2-12cf-488b-95a1-5b349e856091
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921053933/http://www.canada.com/topics/finance/story.html?id=183f84cd-673a-4025-ae82-b71e286ee161&k=36282 to http://www.canada.com/topics/finance/story.html?id=183f84cd-673a-4025-ae82-b71e286ee161&k=36282

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Sea of blue
, . Having the temperature, wind chill, precipitation, precipitation days and the relative humidity all blue is very hard to read. There is no separation between the rows and it's just a sea of blue that conveys little information. If the precipitation days are green then it's usually very pale and looks more white. So it works better if the precipitation and relative humidity is green. See

as opposed to


 * , . I'm see that I forgo to sign above so neither of you were pinged. Now we have the return of the IP who upon finding blue precipitation section changes it to green and then on finding a green precipitation section changes it to blue. Do either of you think that the sea of blue above is easy to read? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no problem reading the table with blue as the default. That is literally the default for these types of tables, so clearly it's not an inherent problem. To me, all precipitation, whether frozen or not, should be the same colour because it is all—wait for it—precipitation. I assume this is why the default is to have all forms of it be blue. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've always said that all precip should be the same colour. It's the default because that's what came first and the other default is non-metric first and completely separate as in the first example at Template:Weather box/doc and you can get up to ten rows of blue. That is hard to read. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 09:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I would agree that having ten rows of blue makes it hard to read, as it blends with the blue temperature colours. While the template sets blue as the default, if you look at the number of transclusions for precipitation colour=green and/or rain colour=green, about 70% of all weatherbox templates use green colours rather than the default blue colouring due to concerns about blending of blue precipitation colours with temperatures. Most major global cities, including virtually all of Canadian weatherboxes uses the green colouring scheme. Of course, I think improving on the colouring scheme of the precipitation days/relative humidity would be most welcomed as currently, both use the same scale as the one for precipitation so they look more pale than usual. Ssbbplayer (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I will pitch in my comments here. After reading previous discussions on the weatherbox and looking at major city articles, I would agree with Ssbbplayer and others on those weatherbox discussions that the lines of blue makes it hard to read and the last stable one appears better to read. Just because the template has blue colours as the default doesn't mean we have to use them. It is the same with the single line function or metric first. By default, it puts imperial units and metric units separately and imperial units first respectively but virtually all weatherboxes use the single line=yes and metric first=respectively. Therefore if we are using standard parameters as an excuse to change the weatherbox, most of the weatherboxes would be displaying imperial units first and separately from metric units which obiviously is not the case for many of the weatherboxes I have seen so it doesn't make sense to change it to blue colours just because it is the standard colour. I reverted the change to the last stable version before all of this edit warring on the colour occurred per WP:BRD. Please do not change it until we can resolve this. I will put in the data here manually to show the one with the blue colours. 13:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)70.24.75.23 (talk)

Old Sourced Climate Normals
The source for old data is still derived from the official Government of Canada website titled "Environment Canada Climate Normals and Averages", which is the same as the others. Please review this prior to rashly deleting sourced edits. The only difference between accessing the old climate normals (1951-1980 and 1941-1970) and the newer ones on the environment canada website is the older ones were originally on paper and were scanned and posted onto another document by Environment Canada itself, which can be accessed by the same website. Hence the source is reliable since it was Environment Canada who originally had them on paper and when transferred online, used another document which can be accessed from their Climate Normals website. Below is a step by step process you can follow to see this is accurate:

1. See the "Environment Canada Climate Normals and & Averages" page to confirm this. Here is the link: https://climate.weather.gc.ca/climate_normals/index_e.html

2. Then click on 1951-1980 or 1941-1970 averages. Each link under those tabs leads to another document (temperature, precipitation, etc)

Lastly, in the new edit, I also added another source - a direct link to the "Environment Canada Climate Normals & Averages" website, so there is no other excuse to delete the edit since it is sourced directly from the official Environment Canada website, which leads to the various documents showing the 1951-1980 and 1941-1970 climate normals.

Thanks! BCWX101 (talk) 09:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That is non-ideal. If the documents are official, they should be stored on Environment Canada's own website, not a Google Drive account whose provenance cannot be verified in and of itself (i.e. without the multi-step process you list above). Also, please read MOS:DASH and get your range styling right. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It is normal for many reliable sources to publish their documents on the google drive url owing to either storage limitations or requirements. The documents are official as they are PDF versions of Environment Canada's publications on climatological normals. As mentioned by User:BCWX101, go to https://climate.weather.gc.ca/climate_normals/index_e.html, then click on 1951–1980 and 1941–1970 normals, then each link under those tabs leads you to each document so it is verfied that is from Environment Canada. If you believe they should be stored on Environment Canada's own website, please contact them and ask them to do that but do not revert a good faith edit in that manner because it is not published on their official website. Question the content, not where the url comes from because it is already hard to find good climate data. What user:BCWX101 did was the right thing by providing a direct link to the data. Ssbbplayer (talk) 18:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah and if you'd checked the page, I've already adjusted the references to include an explanation of their provenance. That being said, it is 100% correct to revert the addition of a source which is, without additional info, just sitting on a Google Drive somewhere, because without knowing who put it on that drive, we have no way to tell whether the document is legitimate or not. Web-based sources literally to be hosted on an official site, so it's still not great that these are on some random Google Drive where the ownership of the account is not apparent from the URL given. —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that this is the only accessible link for the 1951-1980 and 1941–1970 data, cannot be too picky about the url, especially with climate data like these being hard to find online. I would put the link for now but if the link is updated, then change it. Many climate data publications are often available at online by other governmental agencies or other websites, not necessary the official meteorological agency (e.g. NOAA and DWD publish World Meteorological Organization climate normals for its member countries, even if that national meteorological agency does not publish the data on their website such as in the case for most African and Asian countries). Ssbbplayer (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're getting it: if we couldn't show that these were "approved" by Environment Canada (which we are inferring by the fact they have linked to them), then we would need to exclude them. We don't use sources of unknown origin just because online sources are hard to find. Anyway, dealt with for this set of sources, since Environment Canada actually link to them. —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)