Jump to content

Talk:Seville

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 April 2019 and 14 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sograves, Gabbym9903.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable tourist blog source

[edit]

The source claiming Seville is the warmest in continental Europe here [1] is an unreliable tourist blog source which needs to go. Weatherextremes (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Weatherextremes: Don't worry, I have deleted it already as I've actually inserted an official European Space Agency (ESA) source backing up the same claim. https://earth.esa.int/web/earth-watching/image-of-the-week/content/-/article/seville-spain/
The official website of the European Space Agency claims "Seville is the hottest major metropolitan area in Europe" as shown in the source. This is already an A-grade official source so I've removed the other source. --TechnicianGB (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

However this is a reference regarding the maximums and not the average annual T. So I am correcting it for accuracy Weatherextremes (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Weatherextremes: Please don't make further changes again if they don't have consensus, let's first clarify things here in the talk page. Thing is that, you've deleted official AEMET data regarding the annual average of 19.2ºC, can I know why exactly? The 19.2ºC average is an addition based on the official AEMET data, what is referenced is the statement regarding it's the warmest/hottest major city in Europe. If you see, they put a comma before saying anything about the summer average temperatures.
So it's actually saying "Seville is the hottest major metropolitan area in Europe" and then, they say "with summer average high temperatures of above 35 °C." which is an additional statement that doesn't break up the fact they've said before when it says "Seville is the hottest major city in Europe". They just put additional information about the summer temps. Also the 19.2ºC average comes directly from AEMET. Why did you delete that? --TechnicianGB (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not an additional statement. It is a clarification of the hottest designation. You need a source that clearly and verbatim verifies your claim that with a mean annual temperature X Seville is the warmest in CE. You can add the 19.2C reference in the Spain sentence I have added. What you are doing by keeping the wording like that is twisting the meaning of your own source. Weatherextremes (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also this is a content dispute between you and me once again. If I count correctly so far in the climate article your have added two blog sources to back up your claim and now you are providing a source that nowhere does it say anything about the mean annual T. Weatherextremes (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Weatherextremes: First of all, the official AEMET numbers have to prevail. That's why it starts saying the official annual T from AEMET. Second, the phrase saying "the hottest major city in Europe" is directly shown in the ESA source, not specifically mentioning the annual T as that is inserted from the AEMET source. ESA also says it's the warmest, which is something you've had a problem with (you seem to be the only user in Wikipedia to have a problem with that statement) where have you read in the Wikipedia TOS that the source specifically needs to say both the statement and the temperature? The temperature comes from AEMET thus it's directly referenced from AEMET and the statement comes from ESA thus it's directly referenced by ESA. You have literally 0 reasons to delete anything this time as both are A-grade sources. Also, the previous source wasn't exactly a blog as you claim, but whatever. You just came from a 3-month block and you're following the same path again? --TechnicianGB (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With the edit I just made now I make clear that the AEMET numbers are first but the meaning is not twisted as your wording is basically implying something that the ESA source does not say! You have been blocked if I remember correctly as well in the climate of Greece dispute. Remember we were both blocked after you initiated the report to admins.So check out my edit which is much more balanced IMHO. Weatherextremes (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Weatherextremes: It says exactly this: With an annual average of 19.2 °C (67 °F),[1] the city of Seville is the warmest major metropolitan area in Europe[2] and Spain.[3]
So, the annual average T comes from AEMET and it's properly sourced by an AEMET source. The hottest statement comes from ESA and it's properly sourced by ESA: And there is an additional Spanish Newspaper that covers up the other thing. As you can see, there are 3 different things (split up by commas or points) and all of these 3 things have specifical reliable sources. Why are you deleting or making changes over this? I don't understand your point. --TechnicianGB (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Check my latest edit. Two different sentences need to be included in the article as the ESA source does not say anything about the mean annual T! You need a source that verbatim verifies your claim or else it is just twisting the facts of your own source. What don't you understand exactly? Weatherextremes (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Weatherextremes: from where did you took the statement that "you need a source that verbatim verifies your claim" what don't you understand that these are 3 things with 3 different sources, one for each?
I give you an hour to revert your last edit so you can show everyone that you are open to engage in the talk section to properly edit in Wikipedia and to seek a consensus instead of trying to impose again your own POV.
If you don't do it, you don't leave me another choice than reporting you again so an administrator can take actions to explain you things again. It seems you didn't have enough in the past and you do the same again when you got unblocked just 3 days ago? Prove you want to change or I won't have any other option than to report you. These are 3 different statements with one source for each, and Wikipedia:TOS doesn't say anything about what you are saying. --TechnicianGB (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are giving me an hour? I am sorry but this behavior is unacceptable, are you trying to bully me? Are you pretending that you do not understand that by keeping the sentence with a coma that you are twisting your own source resulting in synth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material. This is why you need a verbatim source. The ESA source does not say anything about the mean annual T! It mentions clearly the high maximums. That is why my proposed edit is a correct representation of your sources. You have tried the past 6 months adding 2 unreliable blog sources and now an irrelevant to the mean annual Ts source just to prove your thesis that Seville is the warmest city in continental Europe on average. Please find a source that clearly talks about mean annual temperatures and clearly stipulates that Seville is the warmest in Europe in this regard. You know very well from our discussions back in December that you can not find a reliable statement like this. Weatherextremes (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Weatherextremes: Here you have a source from the UIA Initiative (official European Union LIFE programme) source that specifically says "Sevilla, Spain, is the warmest city in continental Europe" You can find this statement under the "Executive Summary" paragraph: https://www.uia-initiative.eu/en/news/cartujaqanat-recovering-street-life-climate-changing-world-journal-2-how-sevilla-moving-needle at this point you can't reject this fact since this is not any blog but an official European Union site that says exactly what's written now in the page. Any further edits from this point would be just yourself contradicting an official European Union source thus making it disruptive. I know this can interfere with your personal POV and beliefs, but as you can see, even an EU source says the same. The annual temperature is separately referenced by the AEMET source, but if you have a problem with that, you can delete it, as the "Warmest city in Continental Europe" sentence is specifically verbatim verified and sourced. --TechnicianGB (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that is much better. We can tentatively accept this source even though it is a vague statement without a reference in the actual means. So I can actually agree to this source even though we know from current stats there are warmer areas in Europe annually. Given that you have now provided this source I am fine with it. Weatherextremes (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and now it's also properly referenced and stated exactly as the sources say. The 19.2ºC annual mark has been moved on a different paragraph so it perfectly respects and represents the content from the sources. --TechnicianGB (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that is fair enough! Weatherextremes (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Valores climatológicos normales. Sevilla Aeropuerto". AEMET. Retrieved 3 April 2022.
  2. ^ "Seville, Spain". European Space Agency. 2022. Archived from the original on 25 January 2022. Retrieved 3 April 2022. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 25 January 2021 suggested (help)
  3. ^ "¿Cuál es la ciudad más calurosa de España?". Cadena COPE. 3 July 2021. Retrieved 21 December 2021.

Seville

[edit]

26th most populous municipality 2600:1700:9FFE:20B0:454A:25D1:C0CD:6FC0 (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1991-2020 climate normals

[edit]

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) 21:25, 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. Seville's sunshine hours didn't boost up with 300 hours and the summer high averages aren't 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=1237 (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) 22:10, 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) 23:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just for anyone interested, we have reached to a consensus in the talk page of Cordoba as the topic was exactly the same as on this page. So we will leave both sources and problem solved. Pfarla (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We can keep both charts, but keep in mind that AEMET is the most reliable source for climate in Spain. They have climate data stored in AEMET OpenData which can be consulted through an API key. The new 1991-2020 normals from AEMET are different from NOAA, they don't have weather stations in Spain, which is very important.WMO have also the AEMET data normals for climate in Spain (1981-2010).
NOAA shows that Seville has an annual average temperature of 19.3 ºC, but according to the AEMET OpenData, in the period 1991-2020, there were only 7 years in which the average annual temperature was below 19.3 ºC and there were still 7 years in which the average annual temperature was above 20.0 ºC.
An AEMET worker has a blog in which he published 1991-2020 normals: https://climaenmapas.blogspot.com/p/climo19912020.html All the values are from AEMET OpenData (only with API key you can acess) and these are only temperatures and precipitation.
When AEMET publishes 1991-2020 normals, we will delete the NOAA data and upgrade the other 1981-2010 ones. Farell37 (talk) 04:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The AEMET OpenData are not quality controlled. A note from AEMET also mentions that. The data that we have now and have been internationally communicated to the WMO through NOAA will be the ones that AEMET will probably publish on its website. Weatherextremes (talk) 23:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even if they are not quality controlled, it does not necessarily mean that they are wrong, although there are chances that they will change. Also, in NOAA says that The WMO continues to receive updates and additions from Member countries. The 1991-2020 Normals will be updated to reflect additions and changes in the future. That means, it would be updated when AEMET officialy publishes the 1991-2020 normals. Each country's meteorological agency is the most reliable source of climate data for that country.
Some values from stations of Córdoba and Seville from 1981-2010 are also wrong on NOAA normals. Farell37 (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This note pertains to countries that have not already provided to WMO the new climate normals. More notably from Europe this is Portugal and Greece. Weatherextremes (talk) 03:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This applies both to countries that have not published and to possible new updates. The values ​​for the record average temperatures in the city of Seville (and Córdoba too) are wrong in some months and this makes a difference in the final averages. The same also applies to records for average maximum temperatures that are wrong in some months for both Seville and Córdoba, as well as some other Spanish cities. The records shown in NOAA normals are different from those shown in AEMET (on their own website, in extreme values)
If you compare, the highest average monthly temperatures shown on the AEMET website and those shown on NOAA, are different in some months when we talk about average highs and monthly averages. Farell37 (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add AEMET provisional normal values ​​from 1991-2020?

[edit]

I think adding this without a discussion could cause confusion and even generate doubts, since the data is provisional, but coming from a RS (it's actually the best source in this case, since AEMET is the most RS for climate in Spain). That's why I think it's worth starting a discussion about this.

However, I contacted a NOAA worker and he stated that the NOAA climate data from 1991-2020 is from NCEI and is not data from AEMET, which explains the differences in the NOAA values ​​and the NOAA values. AEMET. In other words, this data was never communicated by AEMET. The NOAA worker said to me (via mail): "These are values that NCEI has produced for stations around the US (and world) base on our archived data. I believe many countries/met services produce these using the basic WMO guidelines for normals calculations: https://community.wmo.int/en/wmo-climatological-normals" If you have any doubts about this message or if you don't believe it, I can send it to your email and you can check for yourself that he wrote it to me.

Furthermore, I also contacted (in spanish) an AEMET employee and he stated that it is not yet known when the official normal values ​​for 1991-2020 will be published [2]. However, he himself made the provisional data coming from AEMET OpenData. They are considered provisional because they will likely be updated when AEMET publishes official normal values.

I would like to know if it is worth adding the provisional normal values ​​from 1991-2020 coming from AEMET OpenData, highlighting that the data is still provisional, but again, it comes from the best RS, which is AEMET. Farell37 (talk) 23:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How much is NCEI’s data different from that of AEMET open data?PAper GOL (talk) 13:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there is going to be an update for the values, I think it would be the addition of sunshine and other missing parameters. Not changing the already measured parameters.PAper GOL (talk) 13:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some cities are very different, as example of Seville and Córdoba. Seville on AEMET OpenData has an annual average temperature of 19.6ºC, while on NCEI is 19,3ºC. On Córdoba, the average low temperatures are lower on NCEI compared to AEMET OpenData. However, there's cities like Valencia or Toledo when the difference between AEMET OpenData and NCEI are minimal. Also, the 1981-2010 Seville and Córdoba values from NOAA are different from AEMET 1981-2010 values.
These 1991-2020 AEMET OpenData values made by a employee who works at AEMET are provisional data, but doesn't mean that this data is wrong. Actually, it means that the data will most likely be updated and will have some changes, but it is not a big difference compared to the provisional. Some cities may change more, while others the values can be the same as the provisional data.
You're probably right also. The updated data will contain the sunshine, humidity, precipitation days, snowfall, etc, while this provisional data doesn't have it yet, as show by an AEMET employee [2]
However, if we gonna put this, it is important to mention that data is provisional. The idea is to delete the 1981-2010 AEMET values and put the 1991-2020 AEMET OpenData values with the NOAA ones, until the AEMET publishes the official 1991-2020 values. After that, we will remove the NOAA data and the AEMET official values will remain. Farell37 (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't see any reason to remove the 1981-2010 values, they are the official ones. We can have 2 weatherboxes and I see that they don't have too much data and space. I say that one of these 2 is better to be collapsed, but between NCEI and opendata AEMET I can't say much.
If there is no licensing issue with AEMET's opendata then I prefer it over NCEI, it comes from the state's national agency after all.(I used NCEI because its free access). PAper GOL (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AEMET OpenData can be used, as long as the source is properly mentioned. Even some jornals such as Cordopolis , uses the 1991-2020 provisional AEMET values for the city of Córdoba.
So we should add the 1991-2020 AEMET OpenData and update or change any value if necessary when the official values ​​are published and add other additional parameters and remove the NCEI 1991-2020 values? Farell37 (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True, still the NCEI data can be used as a temporary second source for parameters not provided in the opendata.PAper GOL (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the sunshine and precipitation values from NCEI can remain. So I'll add it more later and replace the normal NCEI values ​​with those from AEMET OpenData, with the exception of the other parameters, mentioning that the other parameters belong to the NCEI. I'm also telling to other people to see the talk page for any doubts Farell37 (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello I have noticed you are using the AEMET opendata in other articles as well which like I said in the past I can't confirm from the AEMET website. Given that you are the only one who has access to these data and I can't cross check these data could you please provide in the talk pages of each article you are using a detailed account of the values per year and month along with the missing years?
Also we can't go by the email of the employee since this is a private communication and it would be a breach of GDPR unless you have written consent from that specific employee. So in good faith I am fine with these data as long as you can provide them in each talk page of a specific article by month and year.
I know its too much work but this way we can know exactly these provisional values and the missing years if any. Maybe you can directly copy paste them from your excel. This way it should be fine and there would not be a reason for a content dispute. Cheers. Weatherextremes (talk) 03:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. These provisional data was made by an employee who works at AEMET and I just passed the 1991-2020 values from his blog to the wikipedia. Adding blog sources on Wikipedia it's not correct, so that's why I only add the AEMET OpenData source. This data is correct, but I don't know if there's any missing year.
But that's a great idea to add all the months and years values for other editors to see and confirm that data is correct, since I can't add to Wikipedia blog sources. It will take much work and time though, even with Excel, but i'll do it. Thanks for the idea to add all values to the talk page. Cheers. Farell37 (talk) 03:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I ve seen the blog and this is why they do not seem trustworthy compared to the NOAA ones. It's a personal blog, we don't know if there are any missing years and on top of that the differences between NOAA and this guy are significant. I mean a 0.3C difference in average annual Ts in Seville is considerable. If we can't find the exact run down per year and month from an independent and RS I am afraid the data can not be used. I am not raising a content dispute at this time. I am gonna wait and see if we can find these value from independent non blog sources first. Weatherextremes (talk) 04:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, according to Wikipedia policies, there's some exceptions that exists when adding blog sources is valid [3][4] This blog belongs to an AEMET employee, who is a climatologist and meteorologist, so as long as blog is made by a professional, these blogs can be added, especially when there is no other source available at the moment (in this case, there are still no official 1991-2020 values). It was written by his professional area, which also makes it acceptable adding to Wikipedia. Even if it is not the best preference, it is acceptable.
So, as I can add the blog as a source (it is an exception in this case) according to these policies, there is no need to put such values ​​on the talk page, since the blog will be added with the respective provisional values. Farell37 (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not when we have an already RS which is NOAA. As per wikipedia policy consensus is not about about counting votes but about policy points [5]. Please provide an alternative RS. Weatherextremes (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're the only one who doesn't like these values. I just prove you a better source than NOAA and is AEMET OpenData. The blog was made by an meteorologist and climatologist who works at AEMET and adding this blog is acceptable, especially that data was made by himself and came from AEMET OpenData. Again, the NOAA values are NOT from AEMET, as I provided in the start of discussion. Everyone here is fine with that data except you. In this case, you are the one who has to reach a consensus. If for any reason you remove this content, I may report it for administratores for removing a more reliable source and put a less reliable source. If you think NOAA is more reliable then AEMET for climate in Spain, you're wrong, because it's not. Farell37 (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Farell37: is adding OFFICIAL data from AEMET OpenData. You are the only one that insists and insists to see that data because you are unable to do it in the Aemet OpenData site. I have said already the data is exact as I have been capable to check it as well.
Since you have required other sources (funny for a guy that makes 95% of his edits based on plain sources, just by doing manual calculations) climaenmapas is a very reliable one because it meets the Wikipedia Criteria for Reliable Sources, despite being a blog it's actually made by a professional who works in that professional area and it's an employee of the most professional (& also official) source for ALL Spanish climate data, which is AEMET. Even the NASA has a blog. Does that make it unreliable?
And let's not forget that the NOAA data is not reliable when it comes to Spain at least. They differ in the 1981-2010 stable averages, in the 1991-2020 ones and also AEMET never published they send their data to NOAA so please let's be serious. WikiEditor1890 (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Seville&oldid=1223884961"