Template talk:Weather box/Archive 2

Weather plot
We can produce a plot of the weather data: I was thinking about maybe adding it to the infobox (perhaps as an option), what do you think?--Doron 00:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I like it, as an option. Can I assume that it wouldn't require too much additional input from the end user?  It is similar to a template that was just created&mdash;Template:Climate chart.&mdash;MJCdetroit 01:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This is how the above examples look with climate chart, which may still need tweaking for places with extreme temperatures, like Nord. Zocky | picture popups 04:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Font color question
The font color for the colder temperatures (black on shades of med to dark blue) I feel are difficult to read. Would it be possible to tweak this somewhat, perhaps switch to white on the darker blues? Please see infobox at Houston, Texas. Thanks, Postoak 00:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is also an issue for New Plymouth, is it possible to change the threshold where the font colour changes to white? Thanks XLerate 03:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Brackets
I think fahrenheit should be in brackets, not the other way around, while still being able to have centermeters in brackets on the hight measurements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajuk (talk • contribs)
 * Setting the "metric_first" variable to yes puts the metric units outside the brackets and the imperials units into the brackets.--Bobblehead (rants) 18:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that Ajuk wanted to have it mixed, e.g. 30°C (86°F) with 1 in (2.5 cm). Which isn't possible. &mdash;MJCdetroit 18:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops. Good point. Not sure why you'd want to do that though.--Bobblehead (rants) 19:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Celsius is not to Fahrenheit in the same way that MM are to Inches, its just perceived that way because Fahrenheit is older and less used, pesonally I have not problem with inches etc Fahrenheit I find hard to understand because it doesn't start at freezing.Ajuk 19:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 300 million Americans (including me) and many in Canada and the Caribbean will bitterly contest your views of the Fahrenheit scale and its lack of use and understandablity. Trust me, we all know what happens at 32 degrees Fahrenheit.  &mdash;MJCdetroit 01:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Consistency in Wikipedia is a great goal (I compiled the first edition of the Manual of Style.) There is nothing horribly wrong with having metric ("centermeters"!) first and Fahrenheit in brackets, but I do feel like weighing in on the "understandability" issue:


 * Metric degrees are too damn big. Fahrenheit degrees are just right.  That is, for everyday temperatures, Celsius degrees are simply too crude.


 * With F degrees, the range of temperatures commonly encountered in everyday life goes from 0° (a really cold day, 32° being merely brisk and possibly icy) to 100° (a slight fever or a really hot day). From there, the next interesting benchmarks are well outside everyday physical experience, being used mainly in basic chemical processes, 212° (eggs) and 350° (bread and cookies).


 * With C degrees, the "everyday life" temperatures are crammed in between -18° and 38°. The remaining "top 100 Celsius degrees" are of no particular daily applicability.  As for the higher chemical readings, the temperature of melted steel (1200° F, 650° C) or the surface of the sun, it hardly matters to us which degrees we use, but Celsius would certainly be the scientist's first choice, as it is for the temperature of deep space.


 * There is a lot of practical compatibility in the other metric measurements, liter to pint, half kilogram to pound, meter to yard, etc., because the scales themselves are relatively compatible, although it is worth noting that the non-metric measurements usually derive from some human comparison, "the foot" and "a foot" and not the wavelength of red light. Nonetheless, there is limited dissonance in switching from one to the other, while with "normal" temperatures, Celsius is a 20 percent outlier at the bottom and a 60 percent outlier at the top while Fahrenheit is all sweet spot.


 * How about that, MJCdetroit? Is that what you were thinking of?  -- Ortolan88 15:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

New infobox
Is there a need for Template:Infobox Weather wrapped? VerruckteDan 22:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Delete it. If there is a need for a "wrap" then it should be discussed here instead of creating yet another new template. &mdash;MJCdetroit 03:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I placed it up for deletion at Templates for deletion/Log/2007 September 4, if you wish to vote on it. &mdash;MJCdetroit 16:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hidden by default
Chennai article uses the Weather infobox. I like the way it is collapsible, but I would like it to be collapsed by default and only expanded when the user hits the "show" button. Is this easy to do? Lotlil 20:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Add a collapsed=yes argument to the template call list in your article.--Doron 21:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That worked. Thanks a ton. Lotlil 21:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Misleading colours for precipitation
The colours for precipitation should be based on the average preciptiation rate (mm per day) not monthly total.

Take Bristol as an example: 127.6mm in February, 133.6 in March. As it currently stands, March is shaded a darker blue, suggesting that it is a wetter month. But of course March has more days. Divide these numbers by 28.25 and 31 respectively, and you see that February has a greater rainfall rate. So the shading is misleading.

Clearly this issue has been already thought about to some extent, because the choice of colour for the annual total precipitation clearly already takes into account that the year is a longer period than a month, so it must be possible to fix this detail.

Thanks. &mdash; Alan✉ 15:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Alan. Perhaps the template could be altered to take account of this issue, where longer months seem wetter. One issue would be what to do with February; one assumes that a average of 28.25 days would be used.
 * However, there is one thing that your quite reasonable argument may be affected by. As we all know, rainfall amounts vary greatly over small spacial areas, particularly in coastal or mountainous areas, or near built-up areas. The averages shown in the tables on WP are mostly those from official meteorological stations or airports, and as the Met Office points out, the averages from those stations are only truly indicative of the climate in that exact location, and even that is affected by inaccuracies in recording. Rainfall amounts a kilometre away will be a few millimetres different to that of the official record, therefore altering the colouring to account for the 3% difference in month length is, as my physics lecturer constantly reminded me, inventing a false level of accuracy which is not actually present. Rossenglish (talk) 14:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your reply. I still think that it's sensible to divide by the number of days in each month when working out what colour to use, so that the colours will only show month-to-month variation where this reflects actual differences in the rainfall rate, and not simply due to the varying lengths of the months.  Of course your point about the locations being slightly off seems a good one, but I think that that's a slightly separate issue, in that my point is more to do with the variations than with the absolute value.  &mdash; Alan✉ 19:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

As per discussions with Alan012, I'd like to ask someone with the knowledge of this template if it is possible for the template to display background colours based on the rainfall total divided by the number of days in the month (28.25 for Feb). If it is possible, and others agree, I would request that this index could be the one used by the template instead of the colour based on rainfall total; my previous concern with the change is no longer an issue. Rossenglish (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC) I would add that in a lot of cases, the slight change in definition will not affect the colour, so the amount of work involved may counter the slight benefit in improving monthly comparison. If it is decided after consideration that this slight improvement does not justify the amount of work, then I would accept the status quo. Rossenglish (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The colours used currently are in effect based on the average length of a month (365.25/12 = 30.4375). I think that if we have a 'new' colour, then it would be determined by dividing the rainfall total by 30.4375 and multiplying by the length of the month. This would only change the colour with months that have rainfall totals close (within 1 or 2 mm) to the current thresholds of the nearest 10 mm. Rossenglish (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

A few problems
As mentioned above the black font on dark blue at the -15.0 - -12.1 range is very hard to read and would be easier if it was white on blue.

Second when I use the "single_line= Yes" optin I get several temperatures that look like this;

-26.0 (- 15)

So I removed that but it makes things worse, as there are a bit too many colours. I used it here and I am getting 13 or 14 different colours making the box look very busy. Is there any way to cut down the number of coulours used. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC) Color scheme for precipitation display. Color scheme for temperature display.
 * To the right are the color schemes as programmed by User:Doron for what it is worth. Maybe he can reprogram them.  Also in your -26 (-15) example, I tried (in FF2 winxppro) to and never got the weird break between the negative sign and the value; it always stayed together.&mdash;  MJC detroit  (yak) 17:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the issue with the infobox here is that because of the record max and min temps, there is a large range of temperatures. I think that reducing the number of colours used in the template will not solve this, as whatever ranges are used for the colours, there will still be widely ranging colours displayed. Perhaps the colours could be used on a slightly larger range, however that would only really benefit the display of extreme temperatures, and lose the finer detail needed to describe the mean temperatures and less extreme climates. 86.146.142.63 (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, it turns out the break is only visible on 15" monitors, which is what we have at work. Back at home on the 17 and 19 it's fine, which I should have thought of first. So with it all being on the one line the number of colours isn't so bad. It would be better if somebody hadn't made an error in 1948 though. The yellow box with 7.8 in January looks silly but it's a sourced figure. I'll ask Doron about the one blue with black font as that is hard to see. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Doron doesn't look to be very active at the moment. Therefore, I made a logical guess here and it seemed to have had the change that you requested on Doron's talk page.  &mdash;  MJC detroit  (yak) 21:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That makes all the difference. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Cut-off et cetera problems
Hi there. I don't know if anyone experiences problems like this, but when using Firefox, a part of the template is hidden behind the infobox/geobox and when using Opera/MSIE, it moves down after infobox, creating unused white space (example Banská Bystrica). Any ideas how to solve this (except moving down, of course)? Personally I would reduce size of fields and text so it would fit in but I don't want to do so as I don't know if someone will revert me straight away after such change. MarkBA what's up?/my mess 20:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * before the infobox helps, but I didn't see what you were talking about. &mdash;  MJC detroit  (yak) 21:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, thanks anyway for "solution". It still does create white space, but both are visible. I meant this: if we could reduce value "style="width:90%"" and relevant lines into 80 or 75, the fields wouldn't be so wide (at least I think) and the infobox wouldn't conflict Geobox in any way. Do you see my point? MarkBA what's up?/my mess 21:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this confusion was created by a wrong example. An article with blank space after adding " " is Žilina. The previous version of this article with a conflict between a weather infobox and a geobox (only in Firefox) can be seen here. Tankred (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This clash between the geobox and the infobox weather still causes a problem. It can be seen here . With FF3.5.7 it creates a large amount of unused whitespace and it looks like the article is prematurely cut-off. With Safari 4.0.4 the two boxes overwrite each other. Tashel (talk) 13:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

No Longer Centred
Hi all, the weather infobox no longer centres, it aligns to the left, this seems to be due to recent changes. Example: Geography of Cornwall. Could this be fixed or a way to choose the alignment added? Many thanks --Joowwww (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A quick solution for now is:

Upgraded to include Rain Fall and Snow Fall and made Precip optional.
I upgraded the template to include Rain fall and snow fall. I've also made the "Precip" fields optional. Therefore, it is possible to have just the average high and low temperatures showing. Some sources give total precipitation and others give rain fall and snow fall. My thinking was that "Precipitation", "Rain Fall" and "Snow Fall" should never be used all at the same time, but the downfall is that it is possible. I hope to have an example (probably Ottawa) soon.

Also, since the template is unprotected, anyone can revert my changes if something gets screwed up. &mdash;  MJC detroit  (yak) 17:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Example added: &mdash;  MJC detroit  (yak) 19:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It might be a good idea to put in a cautionary note to editors that they not to add the rain and snow together to get the total precipitation. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sunshine
Hi, have tried editing the templates to include monthly sunshine totals. However I don't think it's worked out correctly. Can some nice person have a look at it? Yorkshiresky (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Bugs in this template
One thing that's really conspicuous in this template is that when it generates a minus sign for the Celcius temperature corresponding to a positive number when expressed in Fahrenheit, it uses a stubby little hyphen instead of a proper minus sign. Another flaw that showed up only when I tried editing Minneapolis, Minnesota is that when you actually put a minus sign there to replace a hyphen, the software can't handle it. So this template fails to comply with Manual of Style (mathematics). Here's what the difference looks like:
 * -25
 * &minus;25
 * &minus;25

Michael Hardy (talk) 15:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

overlaid by other templates bug?
Como (this version) had Template:Infobox Weather this template underlaid by Template:Infobox Settlement. Is this intended, if so is there a workaround? -84user (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Which browser is causing the problem? IE6/7, Firefox 3 and Opera 9.5 all show the weather box below the settlement box and a large amount of whitespace between the last sentence and the weather box. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I could see it in that version with FF 2 for mac. However, I did not see it when I moved the infobox weather back to the climate section. Just to be safe, when I moved the weather box back to the climate section and added - to the top the insure that they wouldn't crash into each other.  &mdash;  MJC detroit  (yak) 01:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I was using FF2 on Vista. As you say, - seems to fix it. I have now just upgraded to FF3, but the Como page I link to above still overlaps. Netscape 9.0.0.6 also overlaps. All versions are well-behaved in Opera 9.27 - no overlap. The FF3 overlapping occurs whether I am logged in or out. These actions will increase the overlap: widen the window, increase text font size, hide the Table of Contents. Meanwhile I have added - to Rome. -84user (talk) 01:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've just come into work and looking at it on 15" monitor (I used 17 & 19 before) and FF3/IE7/Opera 9.26 and still can't duplicate the problem. Using the - also fixes the whitespace problem. By the way Downtown Dallas had a similar problem in FF2. That revision still looks bad in IE6/7. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 10:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you looking at this version of Como? It still shows the templates crashing over each other in FF3. Your Dallas link also shows the problem: Netscape 9.0.0.6 and FF3 shows overlaps, Opera 9.27 just moves the template down avoiding overlap but creating whitespace instead. It could be a Mozilla bug, so I have asked on the pump here. -84user (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The one that says "This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Itemirus (Talk | contribs | block) at 15:55, 20 July 2008. It may differ significantly from the current revision." It still shows fine for me but with the whitespace. Do you have the opportunity to look at it using a computer without Vista? I'm using XP and MJCdetroit is on a Mac, though why the OS should make a difference I'm not sure. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 18:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah wait, I still seem to be using Firefox 2.0.0.6, so it might be a FF2 only problem! I get the same problem with Firefox 1.0.6 running under Damn Small Linux running under QEMU on Vista. My Ubuntu installation has no internet access, but I will soon try it with the wikipedia-generated HTML source code (have to dual boot first). I reduced the wikicode to two tables and posted this question on Help talk:Table, with a thumbnail.-84user (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Imperial and metric empty syntax version
I'm just wondering if there is a need to have the third version? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 10:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There may be a time when one does not want the template to convert automatically. For instance, if the source already did that and may have done it with more/less precision than the template.  That's when someone will need that syntax.  &mdash;  MJC detroit  (yak) 12:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 14:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments about rounding
The coversion from mm/cm to inches should be to two decimal places. go to NOAA and for option 1 pick Monthly avgs/totals. For option 2 pick anything. For 3 pick Precipitation and for 4 pick anything. A look at the older manuals we have here also indicates that when Environment Canada was still using inches it was to two decimal places.

What did I do wrong here to cause the sun not to shine? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 21:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks like someone entered the sunshine stuff in the doc page but not the actual code. Therefore, I've removed it.
 * As for the conversion stuff, we just need to find the mm/cm expressions and adjust the part that reads: "round 1" to "round 2". That NOAA website is great by the way.  &mdash;  MJC detroit  (yak) 03:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. This will convert the mm to inches correct to two decimal places. I havn't implemented it because I wanted to check the older manuals at work just to confirm that Canada used to measure in inches to two decimal places. The other thing is that the template is linked to from a lot of articles and this would be a major change. The US is the only country that I know of to still be using inches and Manual of Style (dates and numbers) would indicate that this shouldn't be done. After I check the older manuals I'll post a comment at a more central location and see what others think. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What shouldn't be done? Convert mm to inches? We don't need anyone's consensus to set the precision of the default rounding to two places. It seems clear to me and if anyone wanted to insert inches with only one decimal place because that's what their source said, then they can use "both" the imperial and metric syntax (our discussion above).  I'll double check your sandbox link above and comment later.  &mdash;  MJC detroit  (yak) 00:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks good. I think it is a step in the right direction. I'll unprotect it and make the change.  If something unforeseen happens anyone will be able to revert the change in the few days.  &mdash;  MJC detroit  (yak) 01:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. Looks fine to me. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 01:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

show/hide?
I just saw this infobox thingy inserted into Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Not sure if it's really necessary, since there really wasn't anything wrong with the old infobox. But I digress. Anyway, could you get rid of the stupid 'show/hide' thing and just display the table? I don't like the fact that one goes to the article initially and sees just the header of the table with no actual content, and then has to click on 'show' to view it. Especially when clicking 'show' only reveals a table with like four or five rows. It seems rather stupid to me -- sure, if the table is very big, it might make sense. But here, this option is just plain retarded. I'll probably just revert to the other table that was there if this can't be fixed. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I see that there's a 'collapsed=Yes/No' option in the table. But it doesn't work. When I change it to collapsed=No, it still shows the collapsed infobox. Please fix it. Also, do you plan on putting this on every article where the older infoboxes are? If so, I would ask that you make the default be collapsed=No, not Yes. There is really no reason to hide a small table like this. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, I've figured out how to remove the collapsed option. But setting 'collapsed=no' still doesn't work. What you have to do is to remove the entire 'collapsed=' line, and then it will, by default, show the whole table. This doesn't make sense, but it works. I still feel that the whole 'show/hide' option is nonsense for a small table like this, and should probably just be done away with altogether. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Any entry on that line will cause the the box to appear collapsed. I've updated the documentation to reflect that. While I wouldn't use the template in it collapsed stat I can image that there are some people who would. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

What in the hell did you do to 'Template:Average and record temperatures'?
Did somebody just simply delete this template or something?!?! There are articles that were using this and now these just show a red link? If you're replacing the template, fine. But please do it properly -- don't just delete something until you replace it in all articles. There are still issues with this template, so the older template needs to be restored ASAP until those issues are resolved. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It was done in this edit:


 * 21:24, 25 July 2008 Maxim (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Template:Average and record temperatures" ‎ (Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 July 18#Template:Average and record temperatures) (restore)


 * I've restored it until it can be replaced. &mdash;  MJC detroit  (yak) 15:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible additions: Mean daily temperature
I just made this edit which removed the "Mean daily temperature". Would it be a good idea to have that as another optional component? At the same time would it be useful to have any other the other available information added? I was thinking of the type of stuff that's available here. But of course there is a real possibility that too much information is added. While some of that information would be good in an article titled "Climate of..." it would be overkill in an article about a community. Any thoughts? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ See Cambridge Bay for the example. &mdash;  MJC detroit  (yak) 03:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Humidity
What do people think about adding a humidity row? Cmcnicoll (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ See Cambridge Bay for the example. &mdash;  MJC detroit  (yak) 03:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Metric conversions
Metric conversions used to appear next to the US standard data... now they appear underneath, which makes the box much thicker and rather awkward-looking. I don't see any recent changes that would have produced this odd effect, but if anybody knows how to revert it so that the conversions appear to the side that would be ideal. Thanks, epicAdam(talk) 16:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure which particular place you were meaning but "|single_line=Yes" will fix it as seen here. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 04:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have that parameter passed into the template... it seems to be more of a formatting problem. You can see what I mean at Washington, D.C.. Previously, the metric conversions did appear next to the standard units, but no longer... not really sure what caused the change. Best, epicAdam(talk) 04:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, now I see what you mean. When I replied before I wasn't on my own computer and assumed that it was just a function of the monitor I was using. However, I see that it's the same on this one. I also see that the same feature is shown using metric first, see Yellowknife. It's hard to say if it's good or bad. Rather than getting some on one line and some on a second line as was happening before they are now all on two lines making it consistent. It must have been caused by something being changed elsewhere as there have been no major edits to the template in a whiel. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 07:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There has to be a problem with another template interfering with the way the weather table is rendered. That's the only explanation for this. I guess I can go through and see what templates are used on Washington that aren't used in Yellowknife and try to figure it out detective-style. What a royal pain in the ass. :-) -epicAdam(talk) 11:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry I wan't clear there. The infobox weather template shows the dual line feature now in both metric first and imperial first, so it's something that is affecting them both. Also I suspect that it was done as a "better idea". I had noticed that if you had an climate with a lot of sub-zero temperatures then you would get some of them on the same line but others would go onto the second line and that looked very messy. The same would apply to places with a high rainfall. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 12:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Sun and clouds icons
The icons that were added don't do much to increase the visual design of the template. In fact, the designs appear to be "too cute", and almost detract from the encyclopedic nature of the articles. I think they should be removed. Best, epicAdam(talk) 18:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think they should be kept, but use two icons of the same style. Replace the partly cloudy icon on the left with [[File:Weather-few-clouds.svg]] so that they're both Tango (other one is [[File:Weather-rain-thunderstorm.svg]]). fmorel90 (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I also think that they should stay, although it may be a good idea to replace the "few clouds" graphic as suggested by fmore190.--roger6106 (talk) 18:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * These icons are contradictory to the guidelines at WP:Manual of Style (icons). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Please replace a PNG with an SVG
Please replace Image:Nuvola apps kweather.png with Image:Nuvola apps kweather.svg. Thanks. It Is Me Here (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅&mdash;  MJC detroit  (yak) 20:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It Is Me Here (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Added Sunshine pararameters but it still needs adjusting, can you help?
I recently added parameters for Sunshine hours per month. The only example at the moment is Cambridge Bay, Nunavut. I am not the best at web colors, so if someone more knowledgeable can adjust the color scheme, please do so. The colors are controlled from the subtemple: Template:Infobox Weather/cols. There is also a crude chart on its talk page Template talk:Infobox Weather/cols. &mdash;  MJC detroit  (yak) 21:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There was an alternative parmeter that was added today and didn't work. Even if it had worked, it probably would have increased the template expand size due to the additional #if's.  Let's try to keep it simple and use what we have.  We know that works. If that needs to be adjusted then we can discuss it. &mdash;  MJC detroit  (yak) 00:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Odd spacing
The total precipitation figure is spaced a little off. You can see what I mean at New York City or Washington, D.C. with the text being aligned at the top instead of the center. Any way to fix that? Thanks, epicAdam(talk) 16:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is fixed, but I think that the cache (or whatever) needs to be given time clear. It should return to normal in a day or two.  Click on "edit" in that section and you'll see that it is fixed.  &mdash;  MJC detroit  (yak) 22:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

This template or template:Climate_chart
Has there been a discussion about whether this template or template:Climate chart is preferred? user:Joowwww recently changed Tokyo to use this template and one of the regular editors of the Tokyo article reverted the change with a summary revert to previous climate box which is *much* easier to read at a glance. There are more than 500 articles (less than 1000) using this template and somewhat less (between 250 and 500) using the chart template. This may boil down to a personal preference thing, but having both formats in widespread use seems peculiar. Avoiding personal preference for the moment, are there WP:MOS reasons to prefer one over the other - for example, are both equally accessible via screen readers such as JAWS? If there's going to be a discussion about this we may want to have it at a more neutral spot, like WT:MOS or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Meteorology (presumably most of the folks watching this page are at least OK with this template). -- Rick Block (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There was talk above about folding template:Climate Chart into this template as a display option but I am not sure how to do that. It would be nice to have just one infobox that has the ability to do both things.  &mdash;  MJC detroit  (yak) 18:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey Rick (or anyone else), here is a version of the two templates combined. &mdash;  MJC detroit  (yak) 03:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Combining them seems kind of redundant and (IMO) makes it unpleasantly large. There haven't been any MOS type responses yet - is it time to move this discussion elsewhere to try to get more input?  -- Rick Block (talk) 05:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It is possible to make the climate graph collapsible, although I'm not sure how useful it would be automatically hidden. There is an example here, although the code could do with a cleanup by people who actually know what they're doing, unlike me :-) --Joowwww (talk) 12:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hidden and not so big would be better. I threw the first one together while watching a hockey game on TV (the Wings won).  I'll see about making it better.  &mdash;  MJC detroit  (yak) 15:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is something a little different but still not perfect: click here. &mdash;  MJC detroit  (yak) 18:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've invited comments at WT:MOS, WT:Accessibility, and Template talk:Climate chart. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm a user of the screen reader JAWS and a weather freak, so I love reading climate charts and tables. :-) I slightly prefer this template to Template:Climate chart because the table headers are more intuitive than just "J, F, M", etc, and it is easy to tell which field is being read with Template:Infobox Weather, because there are actual headers saying "average high", "average low", etc). However the climate charts are quite readable with a screen reader once the user understands what each field means. Graham 87 08:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Really, can there be any doubt that with a graphical representation, this kind of data is much easier to grasp at a glance? &minus;Woodstone (talk) 12:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's down to personal opinion. I always find the colour-coded chart to be easier to read. Plus the weatherbox is put below any content, leaving space on the right or left of text for a climate-related image, unlike the climate chart template. --Joowwww (talk) 12:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I find that this one is way easier to read and understand. The Climate chart has some problems that should be fixed. It needs to do away with the rounding, and if used in Canadian cities rounds incorrectly at sub-zero temperatures. It's not clear what the temperatures are, are they the daily max/min or the extreme max/min? It has no provision for snow which may be of interest to readers of articles where snow occurs. The climate chart has one advantge in that it's smaller and I think that this template might be better if the default was hidden. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 14:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Graham is blind and accesses content here exclusively through the use of a screen reader. Blind users cannot see the graphical representation presented by the chart version and aren't grasping any data "at a glance" (in either version the table is read by the screen reader, cell by cell, row by row).  I suspect the chart form is more accessible for color blind users who may not be able to distinguish the various background colors used to indicate relative temperatures.  I'm not sure, but I suspect on purely accessibility grounds the chart version is better.  Stylistically I personally prefer the chart version since it's smaller and doesn't use an explosion of colors (which rather violently draws your attention to the table).  The variable contrast between the text and the colored background makes the table version somewhat difficult to read as well (this probably varies by font size and possibly skin preference). -- Rick Block (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As for the last point, I've tweaked the template. Now it uses black text for temperatures between −9 °C and 39 °C, and white text for all other temperatures, regardless of the skin used. I think it is more legible now. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 20:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

°C only and colour scheme

 * When I am using this Template, is it possible to exclude °F rows, so it only shows °C? It is because, if I fill all information, the hight of Template is huge!


 * I think the colour scheme must be expanded to cover temperatures below -15°C. It looks stupid, that -15°C and -39°C is under the same dark blue. Thanks! :) --Digital1 (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Color scheme for temperature display.


 * Here I create Infobox Weather/colt but it is needed to fix it. I used default /colt Template and I believe it is needed to definate the FFFFFF (white) placement or smth like that!?
 * Address: User:Digital1/TEMP/colt < Please someone help me to adopt this colour scheme to this Template. I need it to Latvian Wikipedia. --Digital1 (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's fairly standard in Wikipedia to include both °F and °C in order to help us lowly Americans that only use °F and won't understand what a temp in °C means. Have you tried using |single_line=y. That'll put the °F and °C in the same field and generally reduces the size of the table. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I want to exclude °F, because I want to use it on latvian Wikipedia. --Digital1 (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * After a decent amount of time spent trying to figure stuff out, I thought I had the color scheme set up, but something went wrong. Sorry.  &mdash;  MJC detroit  (yak) 03:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

← I think I figured out how this thing works, when I have some time I'll implement the extended scheme. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 17:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

What to do when values are missing
What can one do when values are missing? For example, this table looks pretty ugly: Turku. Samulili (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It would appear that all you can do is remove the entire section. Strange they would not be available. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 02:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Can someone remove the pretty icons?
As per WP:ICONDECORATION. These are totally unneeded 86.42.78.36 (talk) 01:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. --- RockMFR 02:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Averages?
The heading for the infobox is Weather averages for ..., yet quite a bit of the data is not an average, but the extremes. It seems to me that Weather data for ... would be a more accurate heading--JimWae (talk) 07:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point and I changed it. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 22:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Row overload
The infobox can produce so many rows it becomes visually cluttered. I propose having subheadings for Temperature and Precipitation and Sunshine. These could perhaps even be hidden if desired by a flag. To see what I mean, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate_of_Vancouver&oldid=305190794#Statistics, which also repeats the month headings --JimWae (talk) 07:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)