Template talk:Weather box

Solar exposure MJ/m2

There is no solar exposure energy row definition. This is most commonly expressed in SI units MJ/m2 (Megajoules per metre squared).

As solar energy is increasingly important this is now often collected by meteorology organisations.

"Mean maximum" and "Mean daily maximum" are confusing

Yes I know this has been discussed before, but it's still an issue. I've spent 30-40mins reading comments and looking up parameter text and template docs just figuring out what these two row descriptions are meant to mean. My suggestion is to align the template text with the parameter text. So "Mean maximum" becomes "Average record high" and "Mean daily maximum" becomes "Average high". Regardless of whether changes are ever made, or what they are made to be (because I don't think everyone will ever be happy with the terms used, based on the prior circuitous discussions) I'd also recommend adding notes that appear at the bottom of the template (below "Source:...") explaining what each of the terms in question mean. These notes could be added now while time is taken to determine the best course of action on the proper wording for these rows. 172.59.64.42 (talk) 02:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Im not thrilled about the change we made, but i can't say average record high would be any clearer. It sounds like a contradiction in terms. A monthly record is not the highest temperature recorded in a 30-day period, it's the highest temperature recorded in every instance of that 30-day period each calendar year. —Soap— 13:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

"Mean monthly maximum/minimum" would be far clearer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.171.12.89 (talk) 10:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree, it would be, for the "month" columns. The problem is that there's also a "year" column, which in those rows answers the question, "on average, what is the highest and lowest temperature in a calendar year?". --Trovatore (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I've read the discussions on this page, did a quick search, and I still have no idea what the difference is between the two. Whatever is trying to be conveyed here, the message is being lost. I assume it's 'mean monthly maximum' and 'mean daily maximum'? Markgm30 (talk) 00:47, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Request to change "Percent possible sunshine" to "Possible sunshine percentage" (redux)

I've brought up this issue before (Template talk:Weather box/Archive 10#Possible sunshine header conflict with MOS:CONSISTENT), but could we update the text in the table from "Percent possible sunshine" to "Possible sunshine percentage"?

As noted in the previous discussion, this template is used in numerous articles that follow different conventions for spelling the word (e.g., per cent). This inconsistency has led to multiple MOS:ARTCON and MOS:TIES conflicts across affected articles. Changing the wording to "percentage" wold rectify this issue.

There appeared to be support for making this change in the last discussion (albeit from a limited number of participants), although no concrete action was taken beyond testing it in a sandbox until the discussion eventually tapered off. So with that in mind, could we move forward with implementing this adjustment? Leventio (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Your link to the previous discussion, and the following sandbox diff, show slightly different wording. The above is Possible sunshine percentage whereas previously it was Percentage possible sunshine. Search Template:Weather box/testcases for "percentage" to see the sandbox output. I don't recall what led me to put that wording in the sandbox but other opinions are needed.

Module:Weather box • Module:Weather box/sandbox • same content

What wikitext is wanted? Johnuniq (talk) 09:53, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Huh, didn't realize I flipped the wording around. I'm fine with the wording used before (Percentage possible sunshine). Leventio (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I updated the module to use "Percentage possible sunshine". Johnuniq (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Looks great. Thanks for tackling that! Leventio (talk) 05:12, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Adjusting the width of the opened table?

I'm interested in fixing this table. Currently, if you open the collapsed table, the information appears far below due to the interaction with the Infobox. The "width" parameter seems to only change the width of the collapsed version of the table - is it possible to adjust the width of the opened version? Thanks. Dekadoka (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

The table shouldn't be collapsed as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Scrolling lists and collapsible content. Are you using Chrome or Brave? It's fine on Firefox and Edge but on Chrome / Brave it's pushed below the infobox. I've had some success with <div style="width:75%">{{some weatherbox}}</div> but even reducing it with that cuts off the "year" column. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 23:06, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Firefox, but it still seems to be below the infobox. Seems like it's just not an included feature unfortunately. The article is extremely short so maybe it's an outlier. I haven't come across the same problem anywhere else yet. Dekadoka (talk) 02:03, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I've seen it elsewhere. But I can't think where. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 14:17, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Suggestion

Why there is a parameter |metric first =? Most weatherboxes in Wikipedia have metric units first, so would it be better to have a parameter |imperial first =? Or parameters like |first = metric and |first =imperial so neither can be said to be default? Why this has been set up so? Also, it would be nice to have the following:

• Mean sea-level pressure.
• Average wind speed.
• An optional chart with temperature, precipitation, snowfall and snow depth values under the weatherbox.
• A Köppen and Trewartha climate classification calculator for header.

Could these be added? --40bus (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

It needs the "metric first" because the original author made it that way. And it's stayed that way because of inertia. But it should have been the other way round.

• As for the mean sea-level pressure and the wind it would have an impact on the size of the template. This is already one of the biggest.
• There's an optional chart {{Climate chart}} for temperature. There could easily be another for snow depth.
• The calculator in the header sounds like an excellent idea.

CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 00:29, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

But I would like to have an optional chart which would be integrated to main weatherbox template, like in Finnish Wikipedia's corresponding Ilmastotaulukko template. The chart would be disabled by setting |chart = no. This chart would, unlike {{Climate chart}}, also show mean, record high and record low temperatures as well as snowfall and snow depth. Also, the climate classification calculator would be placed on a row between header and the main cells, and it would be like this (in article Helsinki as an example):

Köppen climate classification: Dfb, Trewartha climate classification: Dcbo

It would automatically understand the changes you made to mean temperatures and precipitation values, such as if you change July mean temperature (18.1 °C) under 18.0 °C, then Trewartha classification would automatically change to Dclo. This would be a good feature. --40bus (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

The Finnish weather box one has an advantage in that it's a lot smaller than this one. As seen at fi:Helsinki (Helsinki) or fi:Amsterdam (Amsterdam). The chart could be added if people want it. I like the climate classification calculator. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:54, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

The Finnish weatherbox template does not show record highs and lows. But the English Wikipedia's chart should show them, as well as mean temperatures. --40bus (talk) 02:46, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Desert Research Institute may be deleting content soon

As I've complained before, the Desert Research Institute has changed their interface from a bare-bones utilitarian one that gives us all the data we need with little effort ..... into a heavily restricted point and click interface that sharply limits the amount of data that can be accessed in one site visit, uses a third-party map host, and seems designed to frustrate "browsers" (people who want data for the sake of curiosity rather than immediate defined needs) and essentially shut down traffic from the wider Internet. It may be that they've long had a problem with automated traffic, and that the only way they can lighten their load is to make it more difficult for humans to access as well .... still, it doesnt make sense to me. Anyway .... that all happened a few years ago. Up until now, they've still had the old links up, but for the first time I noticed the state maps are no longer functioning. This means the rest of it may soon disappear. This will affect weather boxes for the USA only, and there is no convenient replacement. I don't ask anyone to shoulder the task of changing dozens, possibly hundreds, of weather boxes from DRI to some new source when they finally shut off access. I'm just asking that we not go around deleting the hard work of all of us who added those weather boxes to Wikipedia when DRI was still fully functioning. Best wishes, Lollipop (talk) ^{(an alt account of Soap)} 01:05, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Would they not then be dead references and subject to non-removal? CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:00, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I dont know but it hasnt stopped people removing things before. in any case i think its time to move on .... NOAA has a site of its own now, here, and while it's not as good for mass data access as DRI's site was, it's more user-friendly and has more data per station. It seems it's possible to access data more quickly by getting one PDF loaded (use "Preview"), and then changing the station ID to a different station instead of clicking all the boxes again and re-submitting (since they dont save). one annoying thing is that they dont seem to list records, only averages, so i assume people are getting the record highs and lows from some other page on the same site, which .... if i can find it ... i will also link here. —Soap— 22:51, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

acutally, it seems that the "Data Types" search filter isnt actually used in generating the PDF, so only the location field needs to be filled in. it seems that the Data Types is a means of searching for stations that have a certain data type, rather than retrieving only that data type. so that saves a lot of clickwork. —Soap— 23:22, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Not sure if this helps or if you already know about it, but https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/us-climate-normals/ has climate normals as well and is pretty easy to use. Records usually come from NOWData, and each NWS office has their own link for their data (the only thing that changes on the url is the last three letters, which designate the NWS office), but https://xmacis.rcc-acis.org/ (this also comes from NOAA) has all of the same data (and some more as well), just all in one place. It's a bit confusing to figure out how to get the data you want at first. Akamaikai (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

"mean maximum" and "mean minimum" should be renamed or removed

As they are referring to monthly data (taking the highest or lowest monthly temperature for all years and averaging them), the rows should be renamed to "mean monthly maximum" or "mean monthly minimum", and blanking the cell in the year column (as it would no longer be accurate), OR the rows should be removed completely and just have record high, mean daily maximum, daily mean, mean daily minimum, and record low.

I think when most people look up the weather boxes one of the most common questions would be "what is the average high in a month". Mathematically this is averaging all the highs for that month, through all years, aka the mean daily maximum. This is confusing for readers as we also have the mean monthly maximum row above that, which sounds like it could also be that calculation, but is markedly different in a way that very few people would understand without googling, spending significant amounts of time trying to parse the information, or seeing the many discussions here.

Personally I would prefer the mean maximum and mean minimum rows be removed for the reasons I have outlined above. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 22:40, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

The rename to including "monthly" would be fine, except for the last column, which is the mean annual maximum/minimum, rather than monthly.

I think this is useful and pertinent information. I do agree that it's difficult to find a good name for it. But I don't think it makes sense to remove useful information just because we have trouble finding the right label for it. --Trovatore (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Why can't we simply see the average temperature per month?

I perhaps am missing something very obvious here, but why isn't the average monthly temperature displayed on any charts? Seems like an important number that is just completely omitted. Though I have no interest in the average high and lows, I can see why people may be interested - but I just want to see the average temperature per month in the year. Thanks John arneVN (talk) 04:44, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I think that's "Daily mean". I'm not sure what's "daily" about it, though. --Trovatore (talk) 05:03, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, yes you are right - I should have noted that it is simply omitted from like 99% of all charts. I guess it's up to contributors to update it. Thanks for the reply. John arneVN (talk) 08:51, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

why does adding the "name" parameter cause the table title/caption to be rendered in a larger font?

Hi,

Have been adding |name= to some newer weather boxes to ensure the v/t/e links show up when the template's transcluded. I've noticed once I do that, the title/caption of the resultant table is displayed in a larger font.

See no name parameter (title font is displaying for me at 14px) vs. with name parameter (title font is displaying for me at 15.96px). That's a factor of 1.14/114%.

I don't believe this is the intended behaviour but I can't see what in the template or module may be causing it. Can someone with more template/module knowledge than me take a look and fix it?

Oh wait... hmmmn... looks like .navbar-ct-full or .navbar-ct-mini from {{Module:Navbar/styles.css}} may be being applied to the whole title value for the table when, I assume, it's supposed to just be applied to the v/t/e bits? —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

No idea but using Special:ExpandTemplates shows that there is only one difference between the two cases as far as the wikitext produced by the template is concerned. Each case starts with the same line:

{| class="wikitable mw-collapsible" style="width:auto; text-align:center; line-height:1.2em;"

The difference is the second line:

!colspan="14" | Climate data for [[White Rock, British Columbia#Climate|White Rock]] (normals 1991–2020, extremes 1929–present)

!colspan="14" | <templatestyles src="Hlist/styles.css"></templatestyles><templatestyles src="Module:Navbar/styles.css"></templatestyles><div class="navbar plainlinks hlist navbar-collapse navbar-mini"><ul><li class="nv-view">[[Template:White Rock weatherbox|<abbr title="View this template">v</abbr>]]</li><li class="nv-talk">[[Template talk:White Rock weatherbox|<abbr title="Discuss this template">t</abbr>]]</li><li class="nv-edit">[[Special:EditPage/Template:White Rock weatherbox|<abbr title="Edit this template">e</abbr>]]</li></ul></div><div class="navbar-ct-mini">Climate data for [[White Rock, British Columbia#Climate|White Rock]] (normals 1991–2020, extremes 1929–present)</div>

Johnuniq (talk) 02:49, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Collapsible template

I think it would be a good idea to remove the ability to collapse the template. As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Scrolling lists and collapsible content, "Elements that can selectively display or hide content can interfere with the ability of readers to access said content." "Moreover, content in an article should not be collapsed by default." and "Collapsed or auto-collapsing cells or sections may be used with tables if they simply repeat information covered in the main text". The tables are never repeating what is in the text. There is no reason this table should violate the MOS. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqatigijaa (talk), Huliva 06:42, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree, to readers collapse makes it look like "don't bother looking at this it must be so disproportionately long & boring" but really it's not. I've seen settlement articles without even a single uncollapsed climate box why camouflage them? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I also concur. Canterbury Tail talk 13:03, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

We shouldn't remove the ability to collapse the template. There are always going to be outliers where it makes sense. I don't appreciate the fact that we went straight for trying to remove the option altogether rather than discussing the Halifax weatherbox itself -- that is what this is about, after all. MediaKyle (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

add sources in title instead of extra rows below

most large data tables cite the sources in the title (example) instead of having extra sources down below, like this table does, i think it would be better to just put the sources in the title and remove the "Source 1: Department of Weather and Environment^[1]" text from the bottom.

B0oredman (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2026 (UTC)