Talk:Dodge City, Kansas/Archive 1

---

Over the past couple of days, User:Guerrilla of the Renmin and I have been going back and forth with edits over whether to include Daily Mean temperature data in the color-coded weather box table under the Climate section. Historically, when adding content to this section in Kansas city articles, I have populated the Daily Mean using average temperature data from National Weather Service websites. For example, in this case, I pulled the numbers from here: http://www.nws.noaa.gov/climate/xmacis.php?wfo=ddc.

Guerrilla of the Renmin has repeatedly deleted the Daily Mean data from this article. His reasons given thus far have been that the data "provides zero extra information" because "all the US and Canadian agencies do is take (HI + LO) / 2" and that the data has not been "included in the charts of the vast majority of US cities to begin with".

I argue for inclusion of Daily Mean data on the following grounds:

• Inclusion is valid and relevant under
  Wikipedia:USCITY#Climate
  guidelines.
• The data available from the National Weather Service (NWS), which constitutes a reliable source for this sort of information, meets Wikipedia:Verifiability standards.
• As the NWS is a reliable source for meteorological and climatological data, its method of calculating average temperature is trustworthy.
• Template:Weather box includes the row for Daily Mean, indicating that other WP editors, specifically those that developed the template, feel the inclusion of average temperature data is valid and relevant.

Guerrilla and I have now reverted each other's edits multiple times. We're now close to the

. The current version of the article reflects his latest deletion. In the interest of avoiding an edit war, settling this dispute now, and achieving consensus on this issue going forward, I am requesting comment from other editors. Specifically:

• Should Daily Mean temperature data be included in the weather box table in this and other U.S. city articles?
• Is the NWS average temperature data a valid source for populating the Daily Mean section of the table?

FUBAR007 (talk) 22:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• No to inclusion:

• 1) The current wording of
  WP:USCITY#Climate
  is as follows: This section provides general climatic conditions that have been recorded in the community. The purpose is to describe what weather should be expected and why. Topics include average, high, and low temperatures, precipitation (rain, snow, or both), wind, etc. Numbers can sometimes be best displayed and understood using a table. Note the wording is suggestive and does not specifically instruct the editor what to definitely include or exclude, unlike Demographics just below. It is entirely each editor's discretion
• 2) The NWS and Environment Canada are one of the very few governmental meteorological agencies to report the daily mean as the arithmetic mean ([MAX + MIN] / 2), unlike the vast majority of agencies globally, including HKO ({{
  diurnal temperature variation
  ; without daily "means" the reader has no visual barrier between the daily MAX and MIN, and can for himself directly calculate the variation. On a side note, U.S. and Canadian infoboxes, which are typically the largest of any nation's, are already bloated enough without the inclusion of daily "means".
• 3) Just because {{
  Talk
  23:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

In response to 1 - Surely that wording allows the daily mean? "Topics include average, high, and low temperatures." It's a small but important grammatical difference that it doesn't say "Topics include average high and low temperatures." Samwalton9 (talk) 11:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yes to inclusion of Daily Mean temperature data in the color-coded weather box tables. I'll state my biases up front first. I have have been a meteorologist in the USA for over 20 years, and I have worked for the NWS for a majority of that time. I don't happen to work for the NWS anymore, and I don't claim to speak for the NWS here. While there are general rules for observing weather internationally, many countries don't conduct their operations exactly the same way, and this is actually allowed under international (World Meteorological Organization - WMO) rules.

"Should Daily Mean temperature data be included in the weather box table in this and other U.S. city articles?"

Yes, since it provides another level of data for the user to process separately from the other data provided in the standardized Wikipedia weather box templates.

"Is the NWS average temperature data a valid source for populating the Daily Mean section of the table?"

Yes, obviously this would be a completely valid source for data, for U.S. cities & towns only.

"His reasons given thus far have been that the data 'provides zero extra information' because 'all the US and Canadian agencies do is take (HI + LO) / 2' and that the data has not been 'included in the charts of the vast majority of US cities to begin with'."

Just because something isn't included in a Wikipedia article now doesn't mean that it can never be included in the future.

"The current wording of WP:USCITY#Climate is as follows: This section provides general climatic conditions that have been recorded in the community"

...and the data that will be provided for Mean Daily Temperature will actually reflect the way that local data is recorded & calculated locally (see below).

"It is entirely each editor's discretion"

...which obviously means that just because an editor chooses to include it doesn't mean that user is doing anything wrong.

"2) The NWS and Environment Canada are one of the very few governmental meteorological agencies to report the daily mean as the arithmetic mean ([MAX + MIN] / 2), unlike the vast majority of agencies globally"

"A) The latter method is usually much more accurate"

I was actually unaware up until coming across this discussion here that there was a variability in the way that mean daily temperature was being calculated from country to country, but it is, in fact, apparently true (See: Estimating daily mean temperature from synoptic climate observations - Short title: Daily mean temperature - Yuting Ma1 and Peter Guttorp). It's also true that at least some studies have shown that calulating the mean daily temperature using hourly (or even one-minute) values of temperature is sometimes more accurate than the method currently used by the NWS. The problem is that many surface observing sites worldwide aren't actually recording temperature readings every hour...many just take one reading per day of what the max and min temperature was over the previous 24-hour period. I've also never heard any discussion inside (or outside) the NWS about changing the way that mean daily temperatures are calculated in the USA.

The issue here really doesn't even take into account the variability in how different countries calculate daily mean temperature, since the weather boxes in question only use monthly values of "Daily mean °C (°F)" temperatures, and there is only one international standard for calculating those readings (See: World Meteorological Organization - World Weather Watch Technical Report - Handbook on CLIMAT and CLIMAT TEMP Reporting - 2009 edition) according to the WMO, which is to take the daily mean temperatures for each day of the month in question (however that value is calculated in the first place) and average them based on the number of days in the month in question. For example, May has 31 days, so you'd be averaging 31 different daily mean temperatures to get the monthly average temperature, which can be reported in the Wikipedia weather boxes in question.

Just as an aside, derechoes have a rather rare chance of occurrence at any one observing station, but a strong frontal system can frequently have the same effect that was described above by "Guerrilla of the Renmin".

"B) In most climates, especially those of Dodge City, KS and the interior U.S. between 100 and 117 °W, inclusion of daily 'means' in the table distorts the reader's immediate perception of diurnal temperature variation; without daily 'means' the reader has no visual barrier between the daily MAX and MIN, and can for himself directly calculate the variation."

This, IMHO, is a very weak argument. It's important to try & respect the level of intelligence of the people that are reading the information provided on Wikipedia, and I don't think that including one extra piece of data is going to confuse anyone about how much of a "normal" diurnal range a particular location can expect to have in a given month. No one here appears to be advocating for removing the values for "Average high °C (°F)" or "Average low °C (°F)" monthly temperatures from the weather boxes.

"U.S. and Canadian infoboxes, which are typically the largest of any nation's, are already bloated enough without the inclusion of daily 'means'."

There is no limit that I'm aware of to the size of any Wikipedia article, and one more line of data isn't going to be a tipping point for anyone.

"3) Just because 'Weather box' includes such fields does not mean editors are compelled to fill them in. It only means that they are widely reported."

Agreed, and, if that data is reported and available through a reliable source (like the NWS), then I feel very strongly that it should be included here on Wikipedia. Guy1890 (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Mean temperatures should be included in the climate box. Many city articles have mean temperatures. First of all, while the mean temperature is calculated by (HIGH+LOW)/2, and is not as a accurate as the other methods used to calculate mean temperatures, you cannot expect people to calculate the mean by themselves (if I did not see the mean temp, I would calculate it by using that method which might not be the same as the one the source provides). I highly doubt that it confuses anyone about how much of a "normal" diurnal range a particular location can expect to have in a given month. More importantly, mean temperatures are useful in deciding the climate type of a location (for example, Cfa climates must have a mean temp greater than 0°C in closest month and a mean temp greater than 22°C in warmest month) because without it, there could be potential edit wars over the climate type of a particular city (example: New York City). Using mean temperatures can help resolve issues like this one because you can just look at the mean temperatures and refer to the Köppen climate classification. Adding one extra line will not be a tipping point for anyone and if the climate box is too large, then you can just collapse it. Ssbbplayer (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

"More importantly, mean temperatures are useful in deciding the climate type of a location"—And that's what in-text descriptions are there for. With the exception for uncommon (in terms of %population) subarctic climate, all that is needed is a warmest and coolest month average. As you saw at NYC, the presence of mean temperatures does not eliminate the potential for edit wars on classification. GotR

Talk

22:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yes to inclusion. It doesn't hurt anything. Could this be a candidate for Lame Edit Wars? GoodeOldeboy (talk) 03:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• Yes to inclusion. Personally I don't care whether such an item goes in or not, because even if I encounter it in my skimming the article, it does not interfere with my reading anything else. If someone wants to take such trouble and inclusion does no harm, that is far more important then digging up rules that could be interpreted as probably hinting that it might not be the best idea. Conversely, finicking about whether one can find grounds for omitting something minor is gross, disruptive discourtesy to the parties who then have to waste their time on non-substantial issues. I am sure that someone could find something more profitable to contribute than that. JonRichfield (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• Yes to inclusion. Even if the mean temperature is (HIGH+LOW)/2 putting it there ensures that people know that it is (HIGH+LOW)/2 and not something else and conversely putting in mean temperatures that are not based on (HIGH+LOW)/2 ensures that people know that the mean temperature is not calculated as (HIGH+LOW)/2 (using a in text description might not be sufficient enough because to a reader, the reader might interpret the mean temperature as a calculation error if it is not calculated as (HIGH+LOW)/2 such the weatherboxes in China). I usually do not add in mean temperatures only if a reliable source does not provide a mean temperature data such as the weatherboxes in Australia but in this case, I would add it although I will not edit war over it. Ssbbplayer (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• Yes to inclusion, as long as it is expressly cited what the source is (ideally with a few words on what method is used for calculating the mean). – SJ + 17:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
• Yes to inclusion, per the reasons above. It doesn't sound like purposefully misleading or maliciously included data, so I do not really feel the need to object.  — daranz [ t ] 23:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• Yes to inclusion per reasons by OP and other "yes-commentators". I haven't seen any valid argument not to include this data. If the opponents are very upset by the means that the average is calculated they are free to asterix or footnote the "Average" term to indicate how the averages are calculated in this case. _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 04:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The default 30-day RfC period has ended, and the RfC bot has delisted this discussion. I think the consensus in favor of inclusion is clear. Unless others feel the RfC period needs to be extended or a formal

) 22:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. It's time to bring this issue to an end. Guy1890 (talk) 00:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)