Talk:Córdoba, Spain

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Córdoba, Spain article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1: 3 months

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Spain High‑importance

	Spain portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

World Heritage Sites

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject World Heritage Sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of World Heritage Sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.World Heritage SitesWikipedia:WikiProject World Heritage SitesTemplate:WikiProject World Heritage SitesWorld Heritage Sites articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Former countries

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles

Phoenicia Low‑importance

	Phoenicia portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Phoenicia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Phoenicia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.PhoeniciaWikipedia:WikiProject PhoeniciaTemplate:WikiProject PhoeniciaPhoenicia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Córdoba

Córdoba (also Córdova) was from Arabic قرطبة (Qurtuba) and from Latin Corduba Bompanigcc (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1991-2020 climate normals

I am not sure why my edits were reverted. They come from a RS and this is how WP works. It does not matter if the source is from AEMET or not. It is from NOAA as communicated through the WMO. The data are updated climate normals and should remain as they provide readers a cleared and more updated idea of the climate of the city. Weatherextremes (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits were reverted because you're replacing the most reliable source on this topic for a less reliable one. Based on WP:RS you can always replace a source with a more reliable one. Not with a less reliable one which has clearly wrong data. Cordoba's sunshine hours didn't boost up with 350 hours and the annual means didn't go lower, but the opposite. The AEMET OpenData (official for foreign agencies such as NOAA) for 1991-2020 has nothing to do with the data NOAA is providing, either with the official WMO data which you can check here: https://worldweather.wmo.int/en/city.html?cityId=1765 (they still provide the 1981-2010 averages, such as AEMET) so even if it's a reliable source as you call it, if it has clearly wrong data, that has to be wiped out. They claim the data is from WMO but it directly collides with the WMO website. It makes no sense. We don't know from where NOAA is taking that data, they aren't referencing anything. Clearly not the WMO (see website above) values. Pfarla (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey fellow wikieditors @Pfarla: and @Weatherextremes: what if we keep both? So many cities have 2 or more climate charts. And it doesn't bother anyone. You both have good points so what if we keep both? I'm mostly a wiki reader than an editor, and I would enjoy watching both! WikiEditor1890 (talk) 23:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a good idea!We could have both as long as the updated data are shown first to get the reader a better understanding of most recent climate. Weatherextremes (talk) 00:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The updated source is a completely reliable source. Here what NOAA says about 1991-2020 data

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/wmo-climate-normals

More specifically NOAA mentions

Climatological Standard Normals (1991–2020)

Each country provided data calculated and digitized in either EXCEL or ASCII *.CSV (comma separated values) format, following the calculation guidance provided in the WMO Guidelines on the Calculation of Climate Normals (WMO-No. 1203) and additional guidelines provided by the WMO (Annex 2).

Clearly AEMET communicated these to NOAA. It is irrelevant why AEMET has not updated their website. So the updated RS source should be used, not an outdated one Weatherextremes (talk) 00:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also page 70 of the Explanatory notes clearly mentions that Spain provided the data to WMO. The data are good as gold from a RS. They should stay. No way they can't be present in the article. https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/archive/arc0216/0253808/1.1/data/0-data/documents/Explanatory_Information_Region6.pdf Weatherextremes (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are some minor flaws. Summer night temps being lower in the newer data is really suspicious for this climate. But this is nothing compared to the exaggerated amount of extra sunshine. For me what's a "red flag" is the sunshine hours, but I have calculated 5 years on OGIMET for fun and it has been very sunny lately, so it's possible that the NOAA data is accurate. Then, I have went to the AEMET OpenData posted by an AEMET official worker (very famous on Spanish weather media) and the temps differ a little bit, I have checked meteo-climat (very good reputation, it's used in all weather sites and forums) and it's a little bit different too. But hey since you provided all of this data, I can't deny that. So I am okay with keeping both. In fact I think I will start to complete other cities with the NOAA website you have provided for Italian cities, as most of our data is old 1971-2000 or it comes from less reliable sites.

About the order I still tend to say the AEMET 1981-2010 data is better, because it uses both normals and extremes for references. So we don't have to make a mess with the sources. And the 2nd chart is the NOAA one with the averages themselves. But both charts can prevail as there is no need to collapse the NOAA one. So everyone can see both. Pfarla (talk) 01:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is the possibility that AEMET reverted from Campbell-Strokes sunshine recorders to automatic ones. We see that trend worldwide. That would explain the sunshine hours OR it simply was much sunnier during the new reporting period throughout Andalusia! You never know. Weatherextremes (talk) 01:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]