User talk:Subtropical-man/Archive 1

Please write below:

Marseille picture

I do not want to have an edit war with you, but are you really serious? The stone in the bottom left corner and the halfed building on the right side make your picture less than mediocre. Additionally it is overexposed. --Imehling (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Sydney, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. AussieLegend (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Sydney. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. AussieLegend (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miami

Please hide the Miami infobox. I added it to the Climate of the United States to illustrate an example of a tropical climate in the US and as such, it should be hidden by default. otherwise, unhide all of the other infoboxes on that page; they each have templates as they also appear on their respective city articles. --- 华钢琴49 (TALK) 22:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You made a wrong that created infoboxes. In the articles about cities, infoboxes (data of climate) can not be hidden - this is standard on wikipedia. Better to remove infoboxes as separate templates and use the code (code from infobox paste to a specific article, in another articles with hiding infobox, in the other - not). Subtropical-man (talk) 13:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot understand this sentence of yours: 'you made a wrong that created infoboxes'. no, the option is not better; it is a considerable waste of code space. There is no specific rule stating that the infoboxes cannot be hidden. Many of them contain large amounts of data, and it is not as urgent to display such data as the record temperatures on the city articles. ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 14:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Do not have to write in all the data in infobox. Example, see Barcelona#Climate and other, typically temperatures, average sea temperature, Average relative humidity and temperature's recorded (Record high/low), Snow etc write in section, not on infobox. Infoboxes (data of climate) can not be hidden - this is standard on wikipedia. If you want to change it and hide infoboxes and create separate templates for all cities/places, please discuss this with others users. Let more people decide. In Climate of the United States use only code (with "collapsed = Y" parameter), non template. At the moment - without the mainstream discussion with other users - you not move the code to separate templates and hidden templates in the articles about cities. Subtropical-man (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok. the issue here appears to be with the 'collapsed' parameter. From what I have seen, other users only care about these templates if they are not used anywhere; they then are tagged for deletion. and with regards to what data is displayed in the infobox, deleting/removing data will not be received well either. ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 17:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to, vou can delete part of data from very large infoboxes, example Chicago prescribing the part of the contents to the climate section. Possible, that 1 in 100 cases will be disagreements with other user, then hide very large Infobox (with 'collapsed' parameter). For the time being. For some time, the community of wikipedia decides what to do in this case. Subtropical-man (talk) 17:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes, very large infoboxes should be hidden; look at the one at Iqaluit (it's nearly completely filled). The ones with only record/normal temps, precip, and snowfall normals, should not be. And could you respond or get other users to do so on the Miami talk page regarding the sunshine amounts? ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 17:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think, five rows of data: 'Average high and Low', 'Precipitation', 'Avg. precipitation days' and 'Sunshine hours' (last, is a popular) - should be. Snowfall data - yes, but only in articles about the cities with the larger precipitation of snow. Rest of data - integrate with climate section. A good example is for me to Barcelona#Climate (minus Daily mean data - this is optional). As for Miami - we should wait for the opinions of others users, I only report a ---probable--- false data. I may be wrong or I can be right. I do not know. Although interesting is Cairo [1]: ~25 mm precipitation (~1 inches), 14 avg. precipitation days (desert, there is no rain)... and 3,408 sunshine hours - only ~200 more than in Miami :p Subtropical-man (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sunshine data

Hello: my mother and I were discussing vacation plans in Nice (France), where I noticed you added sunshine data. I have done the same for many US cities, but to the complaint of one user, because:

Most of the data on US city articles spans from 1971-2000, the last available 30-year period.
All of the sunshine data I have added is from HKO and all of HKO data is 1961-1990
- because of this purported 'inconsistency', User:JonRidinger has raised an objection
- however, 20 years, let alone 10, is not long enough for basic weather patterns to change drastically.

He and I would appreciate your input on this matter. I may follow up with a link to the beginning of this discussion, but for now please go to the Cities WikiProject; the sunshine data discussion should be the very last section on the project talk page. ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 04:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I have no definite opinion on this topic :( Yet. Subtropical-man (talk) 20:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney

I suggest you get more of an understanding on Australia, different Governments (Local, State and Federal) and different government bodies have different was on doing and naming things.

See the City of Sydney website, "The Sydney Metropolitan Area (classified as the Sydney Statistical Division by the Australian Bureau of Statistics)". Bidgee (talk) 14:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may cover the metropolitan area but officially (according to Government's sources) - however - it is Statistical Division. Subtropical-man (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is the metropolitan area, ABS uses SD since it also covers non-metro areas (IE: smaller regional cities and towns). Bidgee (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reported for breaching the 3RR. Bidgee (talk) 14:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name "Sydney" on Wikipedii about statistical area. If you want article about the metropolitan area, please create "Sydney metropolitan area".

New York City and Auckland for example are the same as the Sydney article. Bidgee (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want an outsider's view, in the introduction I would consider it not just unnecessary, but also pedantic to the point of being unencyclopedic, to describe a city using such highly technical jargon. The purpose of an introduction is to distil the most significant facts about an article, and I would not consider it misleading or inaccurate if a writer was to use a reliable and generally accepted figure as the population of the city without going into whether it is a statistical division, statistical sub-division, urban-centre locality etc.

However, in a more detailed part of the article, such as in "demographics of Sydney", then you may wish to specific how this population is defined ("statistical sub-division, as of 2006", for example). I would however only stick to one measure for the sake of simplicity.

As for "City of Sydney, it is commonly assumed that if somebody refers to themselves as "Sydney", they are not necessary assumed to be from within the boundaries of the "City of Sydney". Indeed the proportion of Sydneysiders actually living within an area that is mostly the Central Business Districts and some inner-city suburbs is quite small. Kransky (talk) 14:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles template

Sorry, but as you appear to be a Pole, you may not be familiar with the imperial system and conversion to metric. If you read the PDF file, page 2, you will see that units for precipitation are given in inches, not millimetres. But I believe that you clearly noticed this. The lowest threshold, 0.01 inches, is equivalent to 0.254 millimetres, which is in between the WMO standards of 1.0 and 0.1 millimetres (I've seen the former far more common). The next threshold, 0.1 inches, is equivalent to 2.54 millimetres, which fails the WMO standards. For purposes of consistency, for most of the work that I have done for climactic data (it's just mere copying, part of the fun) for US cities, I have used the 0.01-in threshold, as I always add precipitation/snow day data when expanding charts. For these reasons, I kindly ask you to revert to my last revision of the template. ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 05:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not notice that is in inches. Only now I noticed - "Precipitation (inches)". Sorry, my bad. Although the most popular in the World is data of 1 mm, here (for L.A.) the lack of information. There is 0.01 inches = 0.254 mm - little unfair for L.A, but difficult. I revert to your last revision. You tell the Americans to they used the International System of Units ;) By the way - watch out for the subtitles. On many sources is data of "Precipitation", on the template also used "Precipitation", not "Rain" (not parameters Year_Rain_inch= or Year_Rain_days=). Subtropical-man (talk) 10:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources in Template:Los Angeles weatherbox

Let's talk about it. See my comment at Template talk:Los Angeles weatherbox. Jordan Brown (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dangling references in Los Angeles

This change appears to have added three references to Los Angeles that are unresolved; there are <ref name=...> references but no actual reference text supplied. Jordan Brown (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Euromonitor ranking

This is the newest Euromonitor ranking published earlier in 2010 [2]. The Euromonitor rankings are always speculative though. Paris is usually regarded as the most visited cities in the world, but Euromonitor always ranks it well below London and many other cities. London is usually ranked as the most visited city in the world by Euromonitor, and the company is a London based British company.--DerechoReguerraz (talk) 00:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Long Beach Aerial Photo

I have worked hard to document the aerial aspects of Southern California, and do not in any way feel that your pictures of trees and some buildings, looks like or in any way represents: Long Beach, please explain why you think the pictures of palm trees and a street are more repsentive of Long Beach then a actual picture of all of Long Beach WPPilot 04:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WPPilot (talk • contribs)

Once again your photo does not represent Long Beach. Please refrain from removing the aerial photo that is posted. It is rather costly to aquire this type of photo and I have worked hard to donate my work to Wiki. If you wish to talk about this use the talk page, but if you continue this editing war I will request that a admin issue a block and address your actions. Thank you WPPilot 00:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC) • contribs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WPPilot (talk • contribs)

I have contributed my photos to Wiki for years now and have never had someone do this. If you look at EACH AND EVERY CITY from Dana Point to Long Beach, Newport Beach- Laguna Beach - Monarch Beach, Dana Point, California - Dana Point - Corona del Mar, Newport Beach, California Long Beach, California- these aerial photos have been used as the main photo of the city. Every One of them. I live here, and have lived here all my life. The picture you offered could have been anywhere in the US. Nothing defining. poor compisition. Distracted by trees. Looks like it was taken out of a office window imho.

Re: Do not promote your own photos. WHY? If you read the licensing system, for photos, in WIKI Commons, it clearly defines that the photos are to be used as PER THE TERMS OF THE PHOTOGRAPHER please read: This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. You are free: to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work to remix – to adapt the work Under the following conditions: attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). share alike – If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.

Perhaps you might like to look more at the legal terms. I work in the legal industry each day of my life and al well versed at what these terms mean, and clearly I can promote the worked that is donated to Wikipedia. I have placed the nice pictures of palm trees, a light pole, a street and some buildings behind them on the page down below. I have had many people tell me that the aerial phot is a nice one, I am sorry that you do not like it but I hope that you have a really nice day. Thanks

--WPPilot 22:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

San Diego

Hello, Subtropical-man. You have new messages at Mathpianist93's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I saw you joined the San Diego Wikiproject and specilize in weather. I think the Chula Vista article needs help badly in the climate section(literatly there is nothing). If your not intested its ok. Spongie555 (talk) 03:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

Odyssey tours looks like a good tour company but you can't use it as a source, see WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. Dougweller (talk) 06:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Subtropical-man (talk) 10:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hellow

Beneharo86 is not a sock puppet of mine, nothing to do, greetings.--BeneharoMencey (talk) 11:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current discussion on how to name San Diego neighborhoods

Hello, Subtropical-man! I see that you are a participant in WikiProject:San Diego. There is a discussion currently going on which might be of interest to you. It concerns the naming style for neighborhoods of the city of San Diego. Currently most San Diego neighborhoods are named in the pattern Point Loma, San Diego, California. The primary proposal at the renaming discussion would change that name to Point Loma; the alternate proposal would change it to Point Loma, San Diego. --MelanieN (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mediterranean Sea

The changes which you made fall under the section "geography", not under genetics, culture, politics or heritage. Geographically, Cyprus is part of Asia. The transcontinental aspect of both Turkey and Egypt is described immediately below. Also, Syria is not north of Turkey. - Takeaway (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World heritage in Cyprus

Hi! Two quick comments regarding this edit and this edit:

UNESCO puts Cyprus in Europe [3] and not in Asia [4]. As far as I understand, we should do the same on wikipedia as it is ugly to have one country in more than one list.
You added some detail to the Cyprus WH sites. If detail was added to all the sites in that list, it would be a very long list. At the moment it looks a bit unbalanced with detail only added to Cyprus. bamse (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained moves of LA pages

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Los Angeles#Unexplained moves of this page. Optigan13 (talk) 23:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}}) -Optigan13 (talk) 23:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, Subtropical-man/Archive 1! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Climate of Europe - temperature

In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Europe#Temperature you have restored a qui-pro-quo. The sentence

Temperatures average between 2°C (January) and 22°C (July) in London,[15] from 5°C (January) to 33°C (July and August) in Athens[17] and from -10°C (January) to 23°C (July) in Moscow.[16][18]

mixes average temperatures of London and Moscow with July average maximum temperatures reported for Athens. 33.5°C you have restored after my request for citation is July average maximum temperature, not July average temperature. See the reference you entered. Perhaps in some source you can find the correct July average temperature for Athens, that is perhaps around 27/28°C. The current version is saying that Athens average temperature in July is 33.5°C while Athens average maximum temperature in July is 33.5. Best regards. --Amending (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the Geography of Spain article the accurate and correct map was replaced with this inaccurate and also incorrect map

In the Geography of Spain article the accurate and correct map on top was replaced with this inaccurate and also incorrect map below

.

The second map is incorrect as it does completely ignore the interior of Spain which is inflenced by the continental climate, and is not at all purely mediterranean. Nor does the northwest of Spain have a mediterranean climate either. The summers there are too wet, for the climate to qualify as mediterranean. It is oceanic.

Could you check the article please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.104.214.15 (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

______________________

You have decided to begin an edit-war about this subject. Several things :

the first map that you are talking about is unsourced. Continental climate does not exist in Spain, and certainly not in the Köppen-classification, whatever the update ("D" in the classification). This climate exists essentially in Russia, Scandinavia, Northern US and Canada.
Even it does not seem to please you, the Spanish meseta belongs to the Mediterranean climate. Csa for the most, Csb in the Northwestern part. The nuance which could exist between it and the coastal areas does not change the subtype.
the source of the second map is in the text (Köppen-Geiger update). Don't suppress it anymore.

http://www.schweizerbart.de/resources/downloads/paper_free/55034.pdf

There is, and there have been several discussions about the subject, especially in the current talk-page of the article "Spain". If you are good faith, I invite you to participate and to give your comments (sourced of course). If you don't want to, I may suggest you to stop your reverts.--Milkrawler (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Where in my edit write "Continental climate" [1]?"

See the key on the map : I can read "Continental"

"Second: your source [2] is outdated (see source: "Manuscript received December 19, 2005; in revised form February 28, 2006; accepted April 10, 2006". Exist new version [3] (Updated world map of the K¨oppen-Geiger climate classification, Revised: 28 September 2007 – Accepted: 4 October 2007 – Published: 11 October 2007) with another map. My edition was based on new data."

No. You are using two different updates of the Köppen work in your answer : an austrian-german one (the one I have posted), and an australian one (your "update"), using different methods. I have already explained that the first was more accurate, essentially due to the denaturation of the Köppen work in the continental domain, which give its accurance questionable. By the way, on the australian work, there is not any "continental" domain in Spain either. There is a discussion on the talk page. I just can invite you to check it.--Milkrawler (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]