Talk:Köppen climate classification

Discrepancy Map/Examples

According to the map, Berlin is in Dfb, but is listed as an example of Cfb in the article. There are possibly other such discrepancies. Vilem Liepelt (talk) 11:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, The map is based on (1980-2016) averages and Berlin's Coldest month avg in that period appeared to be below 0C. This map uses 0C isotherm for C/D borderline if you see the 26th reference(Nature study). Same can be said for Budapest,Bratislava etc.

Berlin's coldest month avg in 1991-2020 normals is above 0C. Therefore it is Cfb and not Dfb. PAper GOL (talk) 15:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Recent sockpuppet edits

Recently this article has been edited extensively over several months by User:Paulistafan, who has been blocked as a sockpuppet account of Honduras200010. The edits of that account's many sockpuppets have focused primarily on climate, and many of their edits have been reverted on substantive grounds even before any notice had been given to the fact that they were accounts of a blocked user. Since there have been many intervening edits by other users, it isn't possible simply to roll back to the state before the user's first edit. Please review this account's (and, for that matter, any other of the sockpuppets') edits for reliability and fix as appropriate.

Gwiztiktok is in all likelihood the latest incarnation (and I've submitted that account for investigation). I've undone that user's changes. Please be on the lookout. Largoplazo (talk) 04:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Baja California Sur is shown as an independent state.

For whatever reason, the state border between Baja California and Baja California Sur is shown as an international border. Baja California Sur is not an independent state. Erbeilas (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I dont know what to do about this.

I can only only thank the creators of the map for classifying the climate types of the Caspian sea! PAper GOL (talk) 14:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Kabul

This city is both Dsa and BSk somehow. There has not been any action for this so far. PAper GOL (talk) 14:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I did the calculation myself. Its Semi-arid. it receives a liitle above 30% of its precip from Apr to Sep.PAper GOL (talk) 06:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Lack of sourcing

Just one location among the lists of examples in this article is sourced. A comment in the #Kabul section immediately above this reads "I did the calculation myself" and I'm starting to wonder if many of the examples were placed here by editors doing the calculations themselves. If so, that's original research. In case anyone's going to argue that this is a matter of routine calculation, which might be a reasonable justification, I'll point out that, in that case, the factors that go into the calculation need to be sourced. It's OK to take 2 and 2 and sum them to 4 without a source for the 4, but then you still need a source for the 2 and the 2.

Ironically, there's an editor who repeatedly introduces material here and in other climate articles and climate sections who does provide soruces (in the edit summaries), and that editor's contributions are routinely reverted. Sometimes grounds for the reversions are stated in terms of the sources not being reliable (I revert them because the editor is a sockpuppet of a blocked account), but, then, how are examples with no sources at all any better than those?

I've just tagged the article accordingly. Largoplazo (talk) 10:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi,@Largoplazo

Looks like you are talking about me. Can you summerize the problem?

I hadn't received any answer after 13 days about the Kabul problem.(my bad,maybe should have waited more?) I dont know if there is way to cite sources directly in edit summeries.Most of my additions are based on data from NOAA other official agencies. The calculations I used are mentioned in semi-arid cliamate and desert climate.

Besides, A (more citations needed) template is NOT a minor edit, is it?PAper GOL (talk) 10:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, PAper GOL, and welcome to Wikipedia (I see you just started editing this month). Yes, your remark is the one that led to my review of the article and my observation about the lack of sourcing. But I'm not singling you out, my observation is about the overall state of the article, which wouldn't have left you to understand that you should proceed any differently from all the other contributors. I summarized the problem already in my first paragraph—if something wasn't clear, can you tell me what it is? The key to it is the article I linked to, WP:No original research.

If your additions are from NOAA, then you should cite the NOAA sources you're getting them from. See Help:Referencing for beginners.

About the "minor" edit: I, like many users, use various tools that are available on Wikipedia to automate tasks such as tagging pages, nominating them for deletion or raising them for discussion, leaving warnings for users, etc. I use Twinkle for a number of these tasks, including tagging articles. Twinkle apparently marks these edits as "minor". And it shouldn't, going by Help:Minor edits, which lists among reasons not to mark an edit as "minor", "Adding or removing visible tags or other templates in an article". Oh, but wait: In the Exceptions section at the end it says "Additionally, bot accounts usually mark their edits as minor in addition to the 'bot' flag". But Twinkle isn't a bot, and it doesn't mark the edit as a bot-created one. This is a matter to raise at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle. Largoplazo (talk) 10:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Now I see what you mean. Well, the way I calculated the data for Kabul is shown below:

The threshold in millimeters is determined by multiplying the average annual temperature in Celsius by 20, then adding:

(a) 280 if 70% or more of the total precipitation is in the spring and summer months (April–September in the Northern Hemisphere, or October–March in the Southern), or

(b) 140 if 30%–70% of the total precipitation is received during the spring and summer, or

(c) 0 if less than 30% of the total precipitation is received during the spring and summer.

I used the year daily mean figure stated in Kabul's weather box.

(the source for daily mean and monthly precip)

20x 12.1 = 242

the total precipitation is in the spring and summer months (April–September in the Northern Hemisphere, is 105.8 when summed.(with calculator)

Total annual precip is 312.

105.8÷312=0.339(~34% done by calculator)

so I had to add 140 to 242. The result would be 382.

If the annual precipitation is less than 50% of this threshold, the classification is BW (arid: desert climate); if it is in the range of 50%–100% of the threshold, the classification is BS (semi-arid: steppe climate).

312 is in 50%-100% of the threshold(382). That is how I reached the BS.

The calculations are a bit too much for Classifying the type. There is high chance of making a mistake. But its the best the way for me to verify.

Maybe I should write my next summaries in the talk page.

I dont know if that is routine Calc or its WP:OR. PAper GOL (talk) 12:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I assume what you are saying is (The data we use to classify the climate type should be referenced). The sources I used are already referenced to a reliable source in their own article and I just need to re-cite them in this article. See this Kabul reference which I copy-pasted from Kabul article's weather box.PAper GOL (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Long edit war

When I see the page's history I see a long-lasting edit war between two users about adding extra iranian cities to examples list. The user keeps adding them to examples despite all reverts. Isn't it time for a discussion about this issue? Its been several months since the start of this war.PAper GOL (talk) 06:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Just as I thought the added Iranian cities were removed. Sina.azadi will probably re-add them in the following weeks and this cycle continues. And the user showed he is not willing to discuss this issue at all. PAper GOL (talk) 05:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I've personally left a message several months ago on Sina.azadi's talk page about why the Iranian cities were removed. I've stated numerous times we do not need more than three cities from a single nation under a single climate category. If you look further up this talk page, you can see why we're limiting examples to three per nation. He or she have elected to ignore the messages. This may be a language barrier issue, or it may just be the user electing to ignore the messages. We may need to employ more stringent measures...or we could just remove all examples from the article. G. Capo (talk) 22:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Maybe (s)he is one of those users who did not understand the (three for each nation) thing.

Whether we need these example lists or not is something needing its own topic. I think All wars and protections in this page is because of example lists.PAper GOL (talk) 10:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed...I'm inclined to remove all examples because of edit-warring over examples. G. Capo (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Letter H

Some E group examples have ETH and EFH climates. It seems that the H letter is for highland locations but no explanation is provided for it. Are there any reliable sources for these classes?PAper GOL (talk) 03:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I found no sources that would use ETH/EFH. Those used for creating maps dont use them either. They were removed. PAper GOL (talk) 13:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I also got problem with locations that can be Df or Ds. One example is Urmia that is classified Dfa but has 3 or 4 dry summer months that make it viable for Dsa. It receives 39% of its precipitation in the high-sun half. Mostly in spring — Preceding unsigned comment added by PAper GOL (talk • contribs) 13:36, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The hot/cold arid situation

I have brought it up before, and I'm bringing it up again; is there anyone with sources on this? I have only seen a 0C isotherm be used for cold/hot deserts once, and only for California. I'm not sure why these are consistently being added. Uness232 (talk) 23:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

There are some sources in overview section where you forgot to edit. Maybe they help you. If they didn't you can remove.PAper GOL (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I have another problem regarding Cw/Dw climates' ALTERNATIVE defintion (at least 70% of annual precip falling in high-sun half). This one is also totally unsourced. Then we have this EFH thing used in this article without mentioning what H actually means.PAper GOL (talk) 12:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

The sources there are for BWn, not for h/k. If you can not find a source for Cw/Dw, delete it too. Uness232 (talk) 12:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

See Talk:Semi-arid climate for previous discussions.PAper GOL (talk) 04:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Math parse error

In the Overview section, there is a math parse error. It reads "Failed to parse (SVG (MathML can be enabled via browser plugin): Invalid response ("Math extension cannot connect to Restbase.") from server "http://localhost:6011/en.wikipedia.org/v1/":): {\textstyle 100-\left ( \frac{\mathrm{Total\,Annual\,Precipitation\,(mm)}}{25} \right )}". I don't know how to fix it. Can someone help? TypoEater (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Relevance of including German words for the different climates?

The Köppen-Geiger classification was initially created in part by a Russian-German person, and without knowing the German terms for the various climates, the letters (especially for the B subtypes) seem nonsensical. Would it be well advised of me to add these in an etymological section, or would that be original research (of which I have been tried and convicted many times)? Ellenor2000 (talk) 07:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

If you cite a reliable source, then it isn't original research. Surely you've been told that before, no? In this case you can go right to the Urquelle: [1], p. C14. And it's certainly relevant. Largoplazo (talk) 10:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Dispute over at Talk:Budapest

Regarding its climate classification per Köppen. I call interested editors to chime in. Uness232 (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I reiterate this request; there needs to be more of a discussion and a consensus on this, as it in fact touches on much more general concerns. Uness232 (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Generalizing climate type descriptions when classification systems conflict

Are more general descriptions of climates acceptable on city/region climate sections if climate classification systems conflict?

Three options come to mind here:

• Option 1: Climate descriptions should not be generalized, even when classifications conflict. This leads to the structure given below being the only acceptable description:

Budapest has a humid subtropical (Köppen: Cfa) or oceanic (Trewartha: Doa) climate.

• Option 2a: Climate descriptions could be generalized, but this should be kept to cases where intractable disputes form due to wording and/or climate type (see Talk:Budapest#Climate for example); therefore the structure given below would also be acceptable in certain circumstances:

Budapest has a humid temperate climate (Köppen: Cfa, Trewartha: Doa).¹

• Option 2b: Much like 2a, but without the dispute requirement. Climate types could be generalized at will as long as climate classifications conflict.

¹ Keep in mind that both Köppen and Trewartha place Budapest into a climate class within the scope of a humid temperate climate (humid subtropical and oceanic respectively). For some cities, the category might need to be broader; Portland, Oregon would simply have a temperate climate under this scheme, as that is the first level of intersection between Mediterranean and oceanic climates. Despite this, within the rules of Köppen and Trewartha, a point of no overlap is mathematically impossible; and it is vanishingly rare to see another classification besides these two on a city page.

Uness232 (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment/Neutral: I am staying neutral on this; but some context may be necessary as this is a rather exceptional RfC. These are three plausible positions that have been extracted out of Talk: Budapest#Climate, they are no means all of the positions on that page. They are simply what seem to be the most pragmatic and/or least radical ones (i.e. ones that do not require the entire classification conventions to be changed). The point of this RfC, then, is to set precedent and convention, as compromises like these seem to be able to calm people down about the controversial applicability of the word 'humid subtropical' to Cfa-class climates, the difference between local and global climate classifications, or climate class disputes that result from mapping, station or climate normal differences. So the question is, are these compromises compliant with Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines? (One more thing; the reason this RfC is here and not in climate classification is due to the much higher visibility of this page. A consensus obtained here will undoubtedly be more general.) Uness232 (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 and it's not even really a choice but the only correct result in my mind - I think it's pretty obvious that in the event that a place is on the edge of two or more Köppen classifications, all of them will be mentioned in RS. Options 2 and 3 are clearly WP:SYNTH. SportingFlyer T·C 01:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

  The issue is not that however. This specifically has to do with what we can do when two climate classifications, virtually always Köppen and Trewartha, put a climate in two different zones and (usually) a dispute breaks out with an infinitely cycling argument on pedantic issues of climate naming and such. Again, see Talk: Budapest#Climate, valuable time gets wasted to a deeply frustrating argument mostly on what to name the Cfa climate. (later note: What I meant by this was not that the disputes always start with the distinctions between Köppen and Trewartha. Sometimes other reasons are also involved like naming standards, as PAper Gol pointed out. This is simply a proposed solution to some of these disputes where policy-related reasons are put forward to deem a certain wording problematic, and we can generalize the climate type due to differences between classifications.) 2a and 2b are proposing to use a more general category that includes both of the climate subtypes being talked about to alleviate this problem. For example, both Mediterranean and oceanic climates are temperate climates by definition, so one could argue that no new information is being ‘synthesized’, so to speak. Uness232 (talk) 01:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

  Then just say city X is in Köppen classification Y and Trewartha classification Z. Anything else is synth. It's really not hard at all. The Cfa climate also has multiple titles but also has a clear title on what to call it - humid subtropical. SportingFlyer T·C 11:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

  This clear title is the main reason there was a long dispute in Budapest talk and ended to this RfC. It wasn’t used by Köppen. Some sources use it and some don’t, if some don’t agree with the naming( like the Hungarian meteo service), then how is it a clear title?PAper GOL (talk) 11:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

  You also simply assert WP:SYNTH without any argumentation whatsoever. Let's look at Portland again for example: Köppen labels it Csb, and Trewartha labels it Do. However, Köppen's C class is explicitly named "temperate", and Trewartha's D class is explicitly named "temperate". Therefore both climate classifications explicitly call the city temperate; that is not a synthesis of information "not stated by either source", as both the sources explicitly call the city temperate. WP:NOTJUSTANYSYNTH. Uness232 (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

  You both are far too deep into the weeds here on this discussion. Be specific. I don't think there's anything wrong with a sentence like "Portland, Oregon is classified as temperate by both the Köppen and Trewartha climate classification systems" as long as the specific classification is also mentioned, which makes it somewhat redundant. Also, humid subtropical is clearly used on Wikipedia while humid temperate clearly states that it is not part of the Köppen classification on its Wikipedia page, and consistency is important. SportingFlyer T·C 12:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

  Well that's almost exactly the wording I propose in 2a and 2b that could (not should, necessarily) be used if there's an intractable dispute, only putting the classifications in parentheses, as is usually done: "Portland, Oregon has a temperate climate (Köppen: Csb, Trewartha: Do)." Csb and Do can be linked, if it would help consistency and/or clarity.

  You seem to claim that this dispute could have been easily resolved by convincing people of humid subtropical; and yes, I thought so too, before there were 110 comments on the section, mostly arguing against the use of humid subtropical (using arguments based on policy oftentimes). This lasted for multiple weeks. The lack of consensus achieved there shows that there are simply too many ambiguities that surface when local and global classifications disagree so sharply that global WP:RS deeply conflicts with local WP:RS, when maps show inconsistencies, or when a climate class has a less-than agreed upon name. In that sense, this is a practical solution; a band-aid, so to speak, to still keep the systematized nature of climate classification on Wikipedia (so still generally discouraging unsystematic descriptive sources and encouraging systematized climate classification sources), while largely resolving other issues that people fall into long, useless discussions on. It is the final compromise reached over there, and I'm asking whether it is one acceptable solution (of many) in future cases.

  A simple assertion calling it WP:SYNTH when it is not at all that clear cut is not productive, either. Uness232 (talk) 12:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

  I still think it is very clear cut - very easy to use global sources as everyone else does - and with that I bid you good day. SportingFlyer T·C 12:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

  If it was indeed so easy, why was there a weeks long argument over at Budapest? And why did users experienced in climate classification not simply force a consensus on the "clear cut" issue, despite my publicizing of the dispute here, on the Weather WikiProject and other places? Maybe there exists a Wikipedia in your head in which everyone agrees on how to interpret WP:RS, how to think about consensus, what sources to prioritize, etc; but that is not at all the Wikipedia we have. Where, in WP:RS, for example, does it say that global climate classifications are better sources than local ones? You seem to imply that something along those lines is the case here, but I do not see that anywhere. So, many people use local WP:RS to challenge naming/classification, and some even propose much more radically altering the way classification works on Wikipedia, prioritizing local WP:RS (this latter one is not plausible in my personal opinion, but it was an argument that came up on Talk: Budapest). Are you willing to simply say that they are acting "against policy/guidelines"?

  If we are discussing the supposed ease of using 'global sources' and non-universal naming schemes on city pages despite what seems to be very clear evidence of the contrary on that talk page; I would sincerely invite you to take a look at the dispute and tell me with what argument would I have been able to "easily" solve the issue in favor of using humid subtropical. I tell you that the status quo was virtually impossible to enforce on Budapest due to these ambiguities, but you do not even seem take into account my argumentation on why it has been difficult, why it is not clear cut, and simply contradict (see the pyramid at WP:TALKNO) what I say with very little supporting argument. If that is all of what you are planning to do, I bid you good day as well. Uness232 (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2a, there is not actually synth problem here.

In the Budapest example we can call it simply temperate as Group C of Köppen is accepted to be temperate. Cfa is mostly considered humid subtropical but not all sources agree on that, but they all agree that Cfa is a temperate climate subtype. It is just a matter of proper wording and writing if the statement is likely to be WP:SYNTH.PAper GOL (talk) 09:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Though synth problem might occur when two or more classifications are used, in which option 1 would be better but still we can use a broader term for subtypes as in option 2a. example:

In Köppen climate classification, Portland(Oregon) has a temperate climate classified as Csb, while under Trewartha classification Portland’s climate is classified as Do.PAper GOL (talk) 09:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

"Though synth problem might occur when two or more classifications are used," Well this is specifically for instances where two (there's very rarely any more than two) classifications are used. Are you saying that WP:SYNTH problems would arise then? If so would that not invalidate your argument for the usage of 2a?

A lot more simply, your argument looks like it contradicts itself here; could you explain what you mean? Uness232 (talk) 10:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I’m slightly towards 2a, because for locations and regions which borderline classifications cause confusion or dispute, it’s better to use more general terms

There won’t be synth problems (it might occur but only if the text is written in bad manner). .PAper GOL (talk) 11:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I see what you mean. So you only think that it would only be WP:SYNTH if the proper general name is not used (i.e. if a Csb/Do climate is labeled as oceanic). That makes sense, thank you for the explanation. Uness232 (talk) 11:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 - anything else falls too close to WP:SYNTH or potentially even cherry picking. If there's ambiguity, we should report the ambiguity, rather than pick whichever we like more, even when it comes to something as mundane as the weather..

DarmaniLink (talk) 08:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@DarmaniLink I understand that you think it is WP:SYNTH, but I think you misunderstand what this is about. Perhaps this is just the complexity of the issue, but no option would involve picking "what we like more". As I've told someone else in a previous comment:

Let's look at Portland again for example: Köppen labels it Csb, and Trewartha labels it Do. However, Köppen's C class is explicitly named "temperate", and Trewartha's D class is explicitly named "temperate". Therefore both climate classifications explicitly call the city temperate; [calling the city temperate] is [therefore] not a synthesis of information "not stated by either source", as both the sources explicitly call the city temperate.

Again, this might not change your opinion that it is WP:SYNTH as you might think that for another reason; but I did want to offer this as a clarification on this admittedly complicated issue. Uness232 (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

admittedly, i should have worded that better but, in cases where the two are different, picking one or the other would be a matter of preference, right? Not every single instance, i'd imagine, as as clearcut as those two. Of course I'm no expert either, and im willing to learn DarmaniLink (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@DarmaniLink It is important to note here that there are only two systematic climate classifications used on Wikipedia, Köppen and Trewartha. This is because other climate classifications do not have sufficient sourcing, or are genetic (boiling down to climatologist opinion, and therefore always mentioned separately). Based on the rules of Köppen and Trewartha, a zone of no overlap is vanishingly rare. Because of the similarity of the two classification's rules, even differences in classification are only possible in a limited amount of circumstances, and all of these (except one rare case that I have realized recently, but would not be a problem) have points of overlap:

• Trewartha allows for tropical climates to be qualified 'rainforest' if they have 1 or 2 months with less than 60mm of precipitation, while Köppen does not. If this happens, the climate can simply be called 'tropical', as both main classes are called 'tropical'.
• A climate with winter temperatures over 0C, summer temperatures over 22C, and less than 8 months over 10C, can be qualified as one of the subtropical subtypes of Köppen, while Trewartha would classify that climate as oceanic. This is by far the most common and most disputed climate zone, causing disputes on the New York City, Budapest (also see Talk:Budapest#Climate)), Milan pages, and many others. The solution here would be to classify the climate as 'temperate', as both classes 'C' in Köppen and 'D' in Trewartha are called temperate.
• Csb types are an exception in Köppen; they are still called Mediterranean, despite being in the cool-summer zone. Many of these climates (like Portland, Oregon, Seattle and others) have less than 8 months of temperatures over 10C, which means that Trewartha would put them in the oceanic zone. The solution here is the same as the previous one, call it temperate, as both classes 'C' in Köppen and 'D' in Trewartha are called temperate.
• Dry-summer or dry-winter continental climates of Köppen are subsumed into the humid category in Trewartha. The solution here is to call the climate simply continental.
• In terms of boreal/subpolar climates, the difference between subpolar oceanic and subpolar continental climates are 0C in Köppen and -10C in Trewartha, the solution here would be to simply call the climate boreal/subpolar.

And finally, the issue that could arise (but is unlikely to for numerous reasons):

• I've recently remembered that the semi-arid climate thresholds are ever-so-slightly different. This could cause a point of no overlap in a very small amount of places, and the solution there is simple, to not simplify, and talk about the two classifications seperately. Either way, this is unlikely to cause problems, as the climates that lead to arguments for simplification are almost always in point 2 and 3.

Uness232 (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't this still just cause the same problems as before though, possibly, of people arguing whether or not a definition applies or if you can reasonably believe that the intersection in some cases can be described as such?

It seems like you would need to put a source on "temperate" for example.

Would it be feasible to make a template to algorithmically generate the intersection, along with a source for that intersection, that can be decided on prior? DarmaniLink (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@DarmaniLink Sorry for the late reply. Theoretically this could happen, but in practice this is basically impossible. This is a little tougher to explain, but main types in Köppen or Trewartha are generally not cited for naming (tropical climate, temperate climate, continental climate and subpolar climate are the ones that would be destinations for "generalization"), because they have uncontroversial WP:COMMONNAMEs. Even subtypes can go uncited sometimes due to uncontroversial naming; see Beijing, Paris, Barcelona as examples. Except for a few subtypes (principally Cfa, which is quite controversially called humid subtropical), the most common names of these climate types in these classifications are very rarely disputed due to usages dating back to the original papers. All of the solutions that could be applied here are therefore widely agreed upon.

Furthermore, this solution was not meant to be an idealistic one but a band-aid of sorts; the problems I've encountered while arguing about these things being twofold:

1) Sometimes local WP:RS contradicts global climate classification so much that it gets used to paint the global climate classification for that location as an uncommon viewpoint or even WP:FRINGE. For example, showing many local sources, editors have argued for the removal of "humid subtropical" from Budapest, because sources calling it continental based on some local classification far outnumbered those using Köppen. However, using local classifications on Wikipedia is also untenable, as long as all the pages for climate types are based on Köppen (I have attempted to change the status quo on this, to no avail). As I've said before:

What will we do when Portland, Oregon has an oceanic climate according to local literature, but the climate page says that oceanic climates need to not have dry summers?

Therefore, the solution currently reached at Budapest#Climate has been the only one that ended up being stable.

2) The few subtypes that can have name disputes (humid subtropical for Cfa, Mediterranean for Csb) almost always have their disputes brought up in transitional locations (due to the lack of zone fluidity in climate classification). Therefore, generalizing climate type (as long as we have another systematic classification to back the generalization) can solve those problems as well, as there are no disputes on main types.

As for the template idea, I am unfortunately not experienced enough in the creation of templates to know whether that would be feasible, but it would be great; not just for calming discussions, but for standardizing and beautifying format. Uness232 (talk) 00:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2024

• Cartago, Costa Rica (Cwb) RomuloVG (talk) 02:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Köppen-Geiger Map 1991-2020 now available in Commons

1991-2020 is the official current base periode (WMO), so I suggest we should switch to the updated map now in Commons for this article. And there are some real differences in climate zones compared to the current map, which is not updated any longer. Orcaborealis (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@Orcaborealis I agree. The 1981-2016 maps are also used in many country maps and those should also be changed to newer versions, which would require a concerted effort. I would suggest alerting some WikiProjects.

As a further note, there are also the predicted climate maps, which are problematic in their own right as they assume the rather extreme RCP8.5, and can now be replaced with more likely scenarios (according to papers cited in the RCP article, RCP3.4 is the most likely) as we now future maps for a wide variety of RCP scenarios. Uness232 (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Elimination of main map and change to one of current climates

Duly founded reasons:

I eliminated the Köppen - Geiger map that appeared at the beginning of the article, mainly because it is a Köppen map based on "projections" or eventual forecasts, from the year 2071 to the year 2100, and this is the title of the source of the map: “High-resolution (1 km) Köppen-Geiger maps for 1901–2099 based on constrained CMIP6 projections” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-023-02549-6

In its place, the Köppen-Geiger map with current climates must be placed. See the Map in Fig.1 letter a), and its descriptions, in any of the following articles: https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata2018214 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6207062/ https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata2018214.pdf https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata2018214

Petition:

For the reasons stated above, I cordially request to insert the Köppen Map with the current climates at the beginning of the article. (I don't know how to do it)

Köppen - Geiger maps that relate to future climate projections or forecasts must appear in a section or subtitle, and not as the main map. Javehgt (talk) 02:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

We'd have to make our own version, since existing maps aren't freely licensed. Remsense诉 04:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's an obstacle; since in the Spanish Wikipedia the Köppen-Geiger map with current climates appears at the top of the article, without any problem. The same can be said of the Japanese, Italian or French Wikipedia, for example.https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_de_K%C3%B6ppenhttps://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_de_K%C3%B6ppen#/media/Fichier:K%C3%B6ppen-Geiger_Climate_Classification_Map.png

For a pedagogical and encyclopedic issue, first and foremost the Köppen map with current climates must appear in the article; and in a separate section or in a subtitle the Köppen maps with projections or climatic eventualities should appear. This is an article about science, and we have to be precise with both the writing and the maps.

I believe that I have duly and respectfully substantiated and objectified each of my points. I revert the changes. Javehgt (talk) 00:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The Köppen map in the beginning of this article is from 1991-2020. That is the current climate period. Uness232 (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Color for Csa is impossible to see in illustrations

When looking at Csa in the diagrams (maps) the Csa color is nearly impossible to distinguish from the background grey color. For examples:

• Köppen_climate_classification#/media/File:Koppen-Geiger_Map_C_present.svg
• Mediterranean_climate#/media/File:Cs_climate.png
• Mediterranean_climate#/media/File:Koppen-Geiger_Map_Csa_present.svg

I understand that the colors of the various climates are based on the official Kopeen color conventions, but I'm wondering if there is some way to improve the contrast of Csa color somehow.

Or, if that is not possible, changing the background color (of the "no climate zone" map regions) from light grey to some other color ... at least in the few maps that focus on Csa/Csb climates.

Noleander (talk) 04:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Change color to differentiate humid subtropical climates

I am suggesting a color change in the koppen climate map to differentiate better between humid subtropical (cfa/cfb/cfc) and monsoon-influenced humid subtropical (cwa/cwb/cwc) climates, as the "greens" are hard to distinguish from each other. Ramzik1999 (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Three cities from each country

The three cities limit for each country is too restrictive with regards to huge countries with lots of cities in the same Koppen zone in different regions of that country (ie USA, Canada, Russia, China), it should instead be one city per state/province for those countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.230.85.65 (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

This way we end up with, for example, 15 US cities in Cfa category or 15 Russian cities in Dfb category, the three cities limit was there to prevent the example list from becoming too long.

Now, however we got 30 or 40 examples from every major zone.

Sometime even 3 may sound too much. Do we really need 3 Australian examples for Dfb, when they all have the same characteristics?PAper GOL (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I might have an idea related to this: we have 10 cities per climate classification all showing the extents of each classification (ie. "normal" Dfa, bordering on Dfb, bordering in BSk, bordering on Cfa, Dfa/Cfa -3 C isotherm, very high temperature range like Harbin, maybe also just 1 per continent or popular cities, etc) so that people can see how Koppen works on either end. Antarctican2606 (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you hold on and tell us the exact reason you keep adding locations here? You are getting into an edit war with @Farell37 and this should be stopped, because the effect is major on this article.

These example lists were not made to represent every single location within a climate, it can be diverse in terms of countries, but not for having every location in that country.PAper GOL (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Because countries like USA, Russia, China, India are huge and have a wide range of climate types, including within that peculiar climate type (New York City is very different from Dallas even though both are Cfa, Moscow is different from Novosibirsk even though both are Dfb) and instead we have people adding 3 examples from small countries that largely have the same climate type 50.205.228.2 (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

In this case, this would be unfair on the part of other countries. It's unfair that you have 15 cities from the United States, Russia, Brazil and only 1 city from another smaller country like Germany, Poland, Uruguay, etc. Furthermore, what is the purpose of having many cities, when 3 cities is enough for readers to understand the example of each climate classification? We don't need many cities. Even though they are very different in terms of temperatures, that doesn't take away from the fact that they belong to the same type of climate and what we want is for readers to understand the climate classification, not how extreme it can vary. If this is the objective, you can choose 3 cities, one of them with very extreme and unusual temperatures, but still within that classification.

It is specifically written that you can only add a maximum of 3 cities, so if anyone disagrees, they should use the talk page, instead of adding more cities and not respecting what is requested. Furthermore, including many cities from the same country gives the impression that that climate only exists in that country, which is not true. Farell37 (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

So cramming cities from a group of small countries with the same climate type is better? Under your rules, we should have 3 cities from Uruguay under Cfa (same number as USA), even though almost all of Uruguay is Cfa and largely similiar in temperature. And it's not unfair when there are far more cities in USA, Russia, Brazil etc than in small countries. 50.205.228.2 (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Please stop reverting the edits. It's not my rules, but yet it is what is requested. They belong to the same type of climate, don't they? That's enough. We don't need 1001 different examples from different cities in the same country. Just because it varies more in terms of temperature and precipitation does it have to be included? They belong to the same climate and that's what matters.

Also, I have to investigate further, I want to confirm if there is something wrong here or is it just me that is wrong. Farell37 (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

There is something definitely wrong. I mean this article was not created and expanded in order to have a list of 40+ examples for every subtype. That should be included in a separate article if we want the lists to remain without any restrictions.PAper GOL (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

No you're not wrong. Three cities per country for each climate type is reasonable. I'm even inclined to remove all examples because people will continually edit these lists...or start listing multiple (more than three) locations from the same nations. G. Capo (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm considering this from scratch, not having previously gotten involved in discussions of the selection of cities. What reader is the target for these lists and what are there take-aways going to be? It isn't going to be a comprehensive resource, because we aren't going to list every city in the world. It isn't to give enough representative cities so that readers can extrapolate to other cities because climate classification doesn't work that way. Is it just to give a few examples and, if so, is 20 or 30 or 40 for a zone taken from throughout the world going to add to whatever benefit a reader will get from 10 examples? It seems to me that coverage is not a useful goal here. If I live in the US Midwest, it isn't any more informative to me to know that a city on the US Atlantic seaboard has the same climate as mine than to know that a city in Kazakhstan does. If 10 US cities are listed, then I still am in the dark about about every other US city besides those 10. If a classification is shared by 50 cities in China, it doesn't make any difference to me whether 1 or 4 or 12 are arbitrarily chosen to be listed here. A small set of representative locations per category suffices, and I don't think that per-country coverage is a useful goal here. Largoplazo (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

So, your suggestion to put, for example, 50 different examples for each type of climate? This may make sense, but it has its disadvantages and some people may take advantage and add many cities from their country, and then we will not be able to add cities from other countries where the climate is also present in them. This limit of 3 cities per country is there for this reason, to avoid these conflicts. Farell37 (talk) 17:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

That isn't close to what I suggested. Given that I said that I don't see how 20, 30, or 40 is any more informative than 10, in terms of achieving whatever we expect to achieve by listing any examples at all, then how did you infer that I was suggesting we give 50? Largoplazo (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

This is becoming even more of a major issue, with William M. Connolley joining the series. This article is turning into a battleground.

We must make a decision ASAP about what to do with example lists. I cannot accept any other major edits regarding them before we reach a Wikipedia:Consensus.PAper GOL (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

In addition to my previous comments, I'm wondering whether it would more useful, rather than listing cities, to list regions. It might be more meaningful to say that such-and-such climate is found in much of the US Pacific Northwest or the area around the Cape of Good Hope or in the Atlas Mountains. Largoplazo (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

And now the IP user is copying the same lists in the other articles without even asking if they are needed there. Either the lists should go to the related articles with fewer examples.

Or they should be completely deleted and remain in this article. There is absolutely no point in having the same long list in 2 articles.PAper GOL (talk) 09:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I chopped out a whole load of stuff just as a sort of example. Really, the existing massive lists were silly. They were never going to be exhaustive, so what was the point? If it was to demonstrate the erudition of editors, that would be silly. If it was so everyone could have a city from "their" pet country, ditto. They are just examples, we only need a few. Whether that few is three, or five, or ten, doesn't greatly matter; but fifty is absurd. It would probably also be good to choose them a bit better than my "take the first three" William M. Connolley (talk) 08:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Sortable tables would be useful –alphabetical lists are too cumbersome to meet diverse criteria. Does Cambridge, Idaho, pop. 335, need to be included, for example? Inasmuch as it's the sole DSa smidgen in a Rocky Mountain state? Idaho is a state with all of the climate zones except two most polar (we have big mountains, but they're not that big). Slippery slope. Do all the Idahoan zones have municipalities, for that matter? And what of Albany, Springfield, Pierre and Tallahassee? Are we imparting geographic knowledge, or assuming it? Slippery slope here, slippery slope there... We have a climactic trilemma and we might as well get used to it. We have three choices; pick two. kencf0618 (talk) 13:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)