Average Portuguese Joe

Nil Einne (talk) 02:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

I advise you to stop doing some of the changes like the ones you're doing in the page Valencia, some of your edits seem disruptive, read Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. This is a friendly warning and you should understand it before making it longer. I reverted your last edits for this same reason. Also, the sources you're removing are not "old" as they're still fully functional and that "seatemperature.org" source looks completely unreliable, it has lots of ads and 0 references to where they get the data from. If you want to do such changes then discuss it in the proper talk pages. About the green color I have inserted it back, but I have seen many times new "sock" users doing similar changes so it was necessary to ensure first. I have seen you've been engaged in a couple of edit wars before, and as talked in the page User talk:Subtropical-man you should ask first to see if it's a reliable source. If you want any advice about how to properly edit wiki pages just reply here in your talk page as I am able to give you helpful advices. --TechnicianGB (talk) 23:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I came back to say that I have removed the 1st source (inserted by someone else in 2015) since the images and the guides referenced to show the yearly average sea temperatures have been removed from that page. I have kept the others, the "seatemperatures" one and the another one is very useful to see actual and historical water temperatures. I also changed it for 25-26 ºC in summer as it's the normal average the sea has around Valencia in July and August. I kept all of the other changes you made on the page including the green color in the rain pattern. I have checked the weather box template and putting the rain color as green is acceptable, so you can do the same in other pages as well. --TechnicianGB (talk) 00:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi TechnicianGB (talk · contribs) ,I was about to write about that but since I just saw your second message, I digress. I only have one question I want to ask you: Why do you keep unediting my edits and then putting them back up? It's not that I'm mad but I just think you're waisting a lot of time unediting them unnecessarily. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 00:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Average Portuguese Joe: As you might have noticed recently, we had to deal and fight with many vandal users that were sockpuppets of previously banned users in Wikipedia. That's why some of the users (including me, or Subtropical-man) that we are constantly editing climate pages, we suspect about new accounts and some of their changes that seem disruptive, just as the ones I have seen you did previously. But don't get me wrong, I just did a friendly advice and I kept 95% of your changes in the page Valencia. In fact you even said the temperatures don't match the source, I checked it and I corrected it as you said (the average is 18.3ºC and the maximums are 22.8ºC) as you can see I am here to help, as is Subtropical-man and as we all are here, to improve Wikipedia, I suggest you reading what's considered a disruptive edit (don't confuse it with vandalism, as I never accused you of being any vandal) and just as I have said before, if you need any help or advice I will gladly help you. Have a nice day! --TechnicianGB (talk) 00:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

@TechnicianGB: Ok, understood. Have a great day! Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 00:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Please stop editing the page Hardiness zone with values that are false, since Alicante is 10b and Cádiz is 11a (and all of the other Spanish cities mentioned in the page have correct values) as that's made by official AEMET numbers looking at the official mean minimums.

You can download the whole climatic guide of Spain from the period 1981-2010 in the official AEMET website, there is a ZIP file at the bottom. They include the official lowest mean temperatures, I have inserted them in Cádiz but not in Alicante. Here is the link: http://www.aemet.es/es/conocermas/recursos_en_linea/publicaciones_y_estudios/publicaciones/detalles/guia_resumida_2010

About editing Alicante's weather box you don't need to do anything else as it's just fine because the title of the weather box is saying "extremes from 1971-" again you can check in that same guide the extremes from the period 1971-2000 and 1981-2000 it's an easy-to-use software made by AEMET. The extremes are since 1971 because before 1970 there were some variations in the data, that's why the weather box from the page of Alicante has extremes starting from 1971 so I hope you will understand now. Anyways, feel free to grab that AEMET software to see much more things about the climate of Spain, just as the mean maximums/minimums for everywhere. You might insert that data optionally, as I did with Cádiz or Málaga. --TechnicianGB (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Here you have a map made by the Spanish Agricultural Association showing the Hardiness Zones of Spain: https://docplayer.es/docs-images/84/90900411/images/28-3.jpg As you can see there are some zones in Spain that are 11a, open Google Maps and compare the location of the cities with that map to see which zones belong to 11a, from major cities only Cádiz, Málaga and Almería are within that zone. Alicante (as well as quite inland of Alicante, just as in Elche) are well within the zone 10, the coastline being 10b and the inland low areas being 10a while Valencia is 10a/10b (I have edited it as it's not only 10b, 10b is only at the coastline but the city has also 10a areas) and there are also some more 11a areas in mainland Spain but they belong to small cities or towns, so they're not considered. In Spain, the highest latitude area with the 11a Hardiness Zone belongs to Águilas, Murcia as you can see on the map. You can download it since it's useful climate information. --TechnicianGB (talk) 14:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi TechnicianGB (talk · contribs) I'm afraid you are not familiar with the concept of Hardiness Zones as it is defined as the annual extreme minimum temperature, not average low temperatures, that's why Miami is in zone 10b/11a and not 12b, it is the average of the lowest temperature recorded each year. This is how I calculated the hardiness zones: https://opendata.dwd.de/climate_environment/CDC/observations_global/CLIMAT/monthly/qc/air_temperature_absolute_min/historical/08452_199901_201712.txt these are the lowest temperatures recorded in each month for the last 18 years in Cádiz, as you can see if you sum the lowest values of each year you will get an average of 3.04ºC which is equivalent to a 10b zone, as for Alicante https://opendata.dwd.de/climate_environment/CDC/observations_global/CLIMAT/monthly/qc/air_temperature_absolute_min/historical/08359_199901_201712.txt the average of the lowest per year is 0.3ºC which is equivalent to a 10a zone. The source is the German Meteorological Service and it has all the official recordings (including AEMET) public and availiable and you can acess it from here https://opendata.dwd.de/climate_environment/CDC/

A map does not make justice to the actual hardiness zone, I can find numerous maps that contradict that one you just showed, like this one https://www.gardenia.net/guide/european-hardiness-zones

As to the other question for Alicante I'll answer it in the Alicante talk page. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Average Portuguese Joe: I'm very afraid about the concept of Hardiness Zone and how it is calcullated. I know it's defined by the annual extreme minimums and not by the average low temperature. That data for both cities seems a bit lower than normal, how did you access it or who taught you to do it? I am unable to check it in that website, it's quite misleading. Is it the data from the cities or maybe their airports? In Alicante is a few kms inland but in Cádiz is much more inland.

The map I have inserted is made by the Spanish Agricultural Association made by an Agricultural Engineer based on all stations of Spain (the agricultural ones, the regional ones and the AEMET ones, all official stations, what AEMET offers in its website is probably under 20% of all of the Spanish stations counting all of the other ones) and it's not a random website with a wide European map like that one you shown me above (which is obviously unreal, not only for Spain but for many other European places) I can even link you the whole inform made of several pages (PDF) with data from real stations with that own agricultural guide where that map has been extracted from, since it's a guide for plant growers in Spain. --TechnicianGB (talk) 16:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

For this reason, these cities should remain as they are in the Hardiness zone wiki page, as they belong to these areas as shown on the map which comes from a very trustworthy source since it's not made by an amateur website or nothing like that and it's based on factual data and real stations, made by an Agricultural Engineer from a real association. I can link you the whole article and the PDF if you want to check it's veracity. I just checked OGIMET and Valencia is 10b but Alicante is 10a/10b. So that's the definitive data.

As for Alicante that's another different story, I have replied where it belongs as well, we can change that data since the extremes shown there are from 1981-nowadays. --TechnicianGB (talk) 16:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have updated Alicante's extremes from 1960 to nowadays, you can check it in the link I left you above, download the guide and check it, it's official AEMET software so it's as safe as it gets. --TechnicianGB (talk) 17:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

@TechnicianGB: For the 1st paragraph you wrote: I taught myself how to do it, in that link I gave you to get the station number go to help/ --> stations_list_CLIMAT_data.txt, to get the normals click observations_global/ --> CLIMAT/ --> monthly/ --> qc/ and choose a normal according to each station. This is the official website for world data and the best website you can go to to get historical data there is not one single value there that is not official, all of those values will be used in future AEMET data (beacause they are from AEMET) especially extremes. The station from Valencia I chose was the warmest of the two (Valencia Viveros) and was probably close to the coast and therefore almost 10b (1.67ºC) a more inland Valencia is without a doubt 10a. I don't know about the airport one but it's most definitely 10a, you can check that if you want.

Do you know from which period of time is that image from the Spanish Agricultural Association? Because all of the stations extremes in the German Meteorological Service are correct and I assure you they are probably the most trustworthy source there is.

The changes you made to Alicante are still very different from what is displayed at AEMET's Website, In my opinion the data should be from the Website as it's obviously more acessible, whether is from Alicant/Alacant or the airport. Do you agree? Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

The data is mostly from 1960-1996/1998 taken from official sources from all across the country, from regional to state to country-wide (INM/AEMET) data. That's why this goes much deeper than AEMET data, that German site and even OGIMET have only access to AEMET data, but official regional governments (if you didn't know, Spain is divided in autonomous communities which are like states, every community has it's own government, Spain is like a mixture of mini countries like the USA or Germany) they have the vast majority of weather stations, AEMET has just like a resume of the province capitals. The report was made in 2004 (by an association ran by an Agricultural Engineer which is a biologist that works in the University of Murcia) the same association made dozens of books/reports.^[1]

I'm not saying that German website is not useful. Since it's using official AEMET data. But I just shown you the best Hardiness map you can find for Spain, to prove you that there are some 11a zones in mainland Spain, as many stations are from regional governments.

This is much more ellaborated than anything you can find over the Internet or that German website. Also since this data is older, nowadays it is warmer as you might know, only looking at the official AEMET averages from 1971-2000 to 1981-2010 every single station has increased. But we will use that data even if it's older, since it's very useful. About Valencia's temperature I measured 1.7ºC as well which makes it 10b and the airport station doesn't belong to the city of Valencia, that's already Manises which is much far inland and in another different city, even a different county already. And of course Valencia Airport (Manises) is nowhere around 10b but the city is, yes that's the official AEMET station, Valencia Viveros. FYI that's why I have edited the Hardiness page again, Valencia is 10b but Alicante is 10a bordering on 10b (depending on the station, as for example the regional station from the port doesn't show up in AEMET or the German website) and I have also corrected and put Málaga in 10b (it's 10b and not 11a) so I have corrected that as well.

About the changes in the page of Alicante... how can you say they're still very different? They show exactly EVERYTHING about the Alicante station (not the airport, Alicante itself) extremes website except for February, that's why I wrote after 1960: http://www.aemet.es/es/serviciosclimaticos/datosclimatologicos/efemerides_extremos*?w=0&k=val&l=8025&datos=det&x=8025&m=1&v=todos Since AEMET offers 3 series of data, 1961-1990, 1971-2000 and 1981-2010 so I have used that software I told you to check before, it's in that link from above and you can see it by yourself. It does even match everything on the AEMET website except for the February number which is older than 1960 but just check it by yourself, they all correlate with the extremes of Alicante. Look at the actual chart. It's exactly the data from 1960-nowadays, official AEMET data as I only edit with official data (when it's available) and in this case we have official data so that's the one I have used. --TechnicianGB (talk) 18:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

@TechnicianGB: As you know temperatures are rising, but not in the Winter and especially on the lows, there are actually a lot of places in Spain in which the min. temperature lowered by -0.1ºC in the last 30 years. As I analised that pdf, obvious zones like Cádiz, Valencia, etc... do not coincide with the values you said. Valencia on that pdf is clearly 10a, Cádiz is 10b, Alicante is 10a, in Almeria not one station records above 4.4ºC only the color says is 11a, the stations say 10b and there are also cases were it is lower or higher than it should be, for example, in the Huelva province the westernmost part is below 100 meters and suposedly registers -0.9ºC while Rosal de la frontera which is further away from the ocean and at 200 meters altitude registers 0.1ºC.

So it is fair to say that the values I put in first are actually correct even with that pdf. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Average Portuguese Joe: I think you didn't understood that PDF very well... the map is what prevails there. Look at the number of every month, that's the one that matters. The final one (in red) just shows the coldest month ever registered in a single year, not the mean of the lowest minimums for the hardiness zone, that's why the map is how it is and btw even being quite old data we can clearly see that a lot of inland Alicante is as well zone 10 and there are some 11a zones in Spain.

Later, as you said, by calcullating the lowest minimum over the past 20 years (OGIMET or the German website) Valencia qualifies as 10b by a small margin, but it does. Alicante is 10a/10b just what I said before (10a mostly, but the port station is 10b) and Cádiz may be bordering 10b/11a depending on the station... so finally we both agree that the only final edit that should be done there is about Cádiz as it's borderline 10b/11a but Valencia is 10b (the city station, not the airport one which is in another city) and Alicante can be said as 10a/10b depending on the station, the port one for example is from the Generalitat Valenciana and not AEMET but I also agree Alicante is in the upper 10a so that's why I left 10a/10b so there isn't any problem. --TechnicianGB (talk) 19:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

As for Almeria, let me tell you something which you can check to prove if it's true or not. As said before, the map uses 1961-1996 data and the AEMET data from the map is the one from 1961-1990 which is slightly colder than the actual one. But look closer. In the region of Almeria you have Adra with an average of 7.2ºC during the coldest month (January) and 6.6ºC as the coldest month ever. That is well above the 11a threshold. Almeria itself is 4.2ºC but the coldest month (January) 5.3ºC and anyways that's 1961-1990 AEMET data, so it's quite correct to say Almeria is 11a nowadays as it was even 20 years ago. Almeria's December and January averages were 9.0-8.1ºC in 1990, 9.4-8.2ºC in 2000 and 9.6-8.3ºC so Almeria's December lows increased by 0.6ºC from 1981-2010 compared to 1961-1990 and January lows increased by 0.2ºC in the same period. I shown you the map more to make an idea about the hardiness zones of coastal Spain, as I know them already. As you can see the map is backed up by all kind of trustworthy and official sources.

To end this, let's keep the changes just as I made them in the Hardiness page. I didn't revert everything you done. You changed Alicante from 10b to 10a (we can better say it's 10a/10b as the AEMET station is 10a but the port regional station is 10b), you changed Cádiz from 11a to 10b (this one is acceptable, although Cádiz itself can be bordering 11a) and Valencia from 10b to 10a/10b and the official AEMET station of Valencia enters by a small margin 10b so that's the hardiness zone of the city. Keep in mind that Viveros is the only station acceptable for the city of Valencia. The airport one is not even in Valencia (it's called Valencia airport as it's the regional airport) but it's located much further inland in another city and even in another county. --TechnicianGB (talk) 19:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have also deleted Cádiz (since there were enough Spanish cities) and I have added Catania, which is a 9b area according to the German Met source (-1.7ºC lowest average)^[1] and I have also ordered properly the chart as Belgrade wasn't in the right place, the white/gray background wasn't also properly ordered. I have improved the page in overall, changed the cities to their proper hardiness zones and I have deleted Cádiz and changed it for Catania. Oh, it's also worthy to mention that I changed Palma de Mallorca from 10a to 10b since it's 10b as the DWD lowest average is 2.9ºC: https://opendata.dwd.de/climate_environment/CDC/observations_global/CLIMAT/monthly/qc/air_temperature_absolute_min/historical/08301_199901_201712.txt --TechnicianGB (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

@TechnicianGB: Since both of our sources are different in some ways I think the best thing to do is to "combine" that range all together so Alicante 10a/10b, 10b only in the port,In Valencia Manizes is -0.6 but even if interior Valencia is +1ºC it's still a solid 10a so Valencia should be classified as 10a/10b, Cádiz doesn't appear as 11a on the map maybe because they decided it did not reach the criteria and by my 1999 to 2017 data the average is 3.04ºC which is a solid 10b so I still think Cádiz can't be fully classidied with an 11a, Almeria's airport is on the coast and barelly fits 11a, my calculations summed up to 4.18ºC so it's clearly 10b/11a, I was to put 11a but these are all values for the coast(which is obviously milder) and not for the whole city. Also A Coruña is 2.43ºC in the city not the airport so it should be 10b on the city itself. So, resumming what I said previously: Alicante 10a/10b, Valencia 10a/10b, Cádiz 10b/11a (i'll leave it up to you,for me is 10b but you can say 10b/11a), Almeria 10b/11a, A Coruña 10a/10b. Can we agree on this? Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Average Portuguese Joe: Look at my last changes. I left Alicante on 10a but Valencia must remain on 10b as the AEMET station of Valencia enters by a small margin 10b so that's the hardiness zone of the city, as Valencia Viveros is the only official station within the city's limits. As you can see in the page Valencia Airport, the airport is not even in the city but well inland in the city of Manises, which is even in another county separate from Valencia. Manises is not representative of Valencia which lies straight on the coastline.

As for Cádiz I have deleted it and replaced it with Catania, as there were already too many Spanish cities. As for Almería 11a should remain, since the city averaged 4.2ºC in the 1960-1996 data but in the map is clearly 11a and other nearby stations are quite above the 11a threshold such as Adra, that zone has very mild temps during the winter. In fact Almería never registered any freeze. As for A Coruña I left it on 10a instead of 10b but I was wrong, since if I look at the DWD website it's a 10b place (2.2ºC average) so I will revert my change for Coruña. In Coruña the same happens with the airport, being 10km inland on a higher altitude while Coruña is much milder as heavily influenced by the ocean. You are right, Coruña is 10b, the airport doesn't represent the city just as it happens with Valencia.

So finally I left: Alicante 10a, Almeria 11a, Valencia 10b, Coruña 10b (in both Valencia and Coruña we take the official AEMET stations from the cities, not the airport ones which don't represent their climates since their airports are far inland in another cities at higher altitudes, such as Manises and Culleredo, so we will use the official stations of Valencia and La Coruña) and I removed Cádiz and I have replaced it with Catania. It looks ok right now, isn't it? Regards! --TechnicianGB (talk) 21:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

@TechnicianGB: I still don't agree that Valencia is fully 10b, it's 1.67°C in Viveros clearly in the city centre so beyond Viveiros is garanteed that it's 10a so it should be 10a/10b or 10b/10a whatever. The rest of the cities I can agree altough Malaga is really weird because the airport is almost 10a. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 22:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Average Portuguese Joe: But it is! Just listen to this, check it by yourself if you want: If you calcullate the lowest minimums from the last 20 years on DwD (2001-2020, 2018-2020 data is in a different page in the same website) the result is 1.94ºC which is clearly above the 10b threshold. Also, Viveros is not in the city centre and in fact, it's in the middle of the biggest park of the city surrounded by giant trees and water fountains that make that place as neutral as it could be for a place inside a city, but obviously there is some UHI there, but not too much as you might think, as there is in Madrid for example. Also it's in one of the more sparsely populated areas in Valencia, it's not in a very dense area. Also that's not the city center and there are other regional weather stations, such as one on the port that is obviously milder, but we will take Viveros as it's an official AEMET station respecting all of the WMO measurements with no warming elements near it and it's inside the zone 10b without any kind of doubt. I can also link you pages of regional weather associations that have other stations, and you can see that the ones that are really near the city centre or in the UHI are always about 1-2ºC warmer, as well as the one from the beach/port always have at least 1ºC milder lows than the one from Viveros.

But anyways since the official AEMET station for the past 20 years shows up 1.94ºC (calcullate from 2001 to 2020, if you don't want to count 2020 then calcullate from 2000 to 2019 and you will still have almost 1.9ºC) so that's enough in the zone 10b and you can check with Google that Viveros is not any kind of city centre and it's a "cool down" area in the city since it's a giant park with lots of nature so people can have a little rest from the hot summer days. So definetly, Valencia city's Hardiness Area is within the 10b Hardiness Zone, obviously more inland off the city limits it's already 10a but the city itself is 10b as we can see relying on official data. Alicante has warmer daytime temperatures, but Valencia has warmer nights. Have a nice day! --TechnicianGB (talk) 23:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

@TechnicianGB: I actually didn't knew DwD had 2018-2020 data, It's a good hipothesis for Viveros, after all it is away from the city's urban heat. Still, I'm leaning for 10a/10b but you can solely put 10b if that's a problem. Have a great day! Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 00:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not attack other editors, as you did in your edit summery at Lorca, Spain. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 23:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

@LakesideMiners: Yeah sorry about that, should have been more peacefull, anyways thank you. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 23:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, and thank you for your edit adding the Portuguese and Spanish names for Taro in its article. You did not include any references in your edit however, so, I tried to find some.

The references I was able to find give me the impression that inhame is at least sometimes used for yam, and name is always (or at least mainly) used for yam. So, I took the liberty of excluding name, inhame coco, and coco from the article; and replaced them with Portuguese taro and Spanish malanga, which are the translations of 'taro' I could find in sources.

You can go to the article, view my sources, and tell me if you've any concerns with my edit. Do feel free to add the names you initially provided with suitable references. —I'llbeyourbeach (talk) 16:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

@I'llbeyourbeach: Hi, thanks for letting me know, I should've put a source to back it up but there's no english source to that, the only reliable sources I found are in portuguese. In Portugal we don't call it Taro, most people in Portugal know this vegetable as inhame and in the Azores it is also known as coco. Taro is an english name. https://tradicional.dgadr.gov.pt/pt/cat/outros-produtos-vegetais/771-inhame-dos-acores

In the spanish wikipedia it says that only in the Canary Islands the name ñame is used to refer to Colocasia esculenta https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%91ame. I don't know for sure if they call it malanga or not but I think it's better to not rely on a translator or dictionary, as the word may not be used that often.

I did a little bit more research and found that the term coco is mostly used in the central islands of the Azores: Pico, Faial and São Jorge. https://www.clubevinhosportugueses.pt/turismo/sabores-dos-acores-inhame/

So if you agree I think it's best to leave the original text I wrote and add some of these sources and maybe divide between the spanish term and the Canarian term.

Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

There's no problem with including Portuguese or Spanish sources in an en.wiki article if reliable English sources can't be found; these citations wouldn't be an issue on that basis.

You make a fair point about citing dictionaries for common names, I'll remove taro as a Portuguese name from the article and add the tradicional.dgadr.gov.pt article you mentioned—I think a dictionary is the only backing I was able to find for ′taro′.

Going through the rest of these sources and the wiki article I get the impression that there is an amount of conflation between taro ("old cocoyam"; Colocasia esculenta) and yam ("new cocoyam"; Dioscorea) for these other names which was the basis for me removing inhame coco—I assumed that was cocoyam. 'New' or 'old' I did't know. Now that you've shown thisb to me I think clubevinhosportugueses.pt is talking about taro when they say coco and inhame, because they show images of taro leaves. But I'm reluctant to add mentions of names used locally on the Azores on the names and etymology section because I feel there needs to be some level of conciseness there. If taro and the Azores had a notable connection or the like then maybe I could see it, but this feels a bit like adding obscure names and going against WP:PROPORTION. Same for adding the Canarian name, I don't feel adding all the names of taro spoken in Spain is helpful. If you can demonstrate the Azorean and Canarian name for taro are important then I won't stop you from adding those back in.

Another thing about that es.wiki article, it goes on to say in that 'known elsewhere as "taro" or "aro"' (if my translator app was accurate); so... do they mean 'elsewhere' as in 'elsewhere in Spain' or as in the rest of the world in general. Not sure what the reference for that is. Also, the es.wiki article for taro (which is also called taro; can taro really be a Spanish name for the vegetable?) it says at the end in §Descripción that taro is also called malanga, but, again, can't figure out what the reference for that is.

Thenks a lot tho, the research you'd done is thorough, and a part of it will help us a lot. I'll add the tradicional.dgadr.gov.pt article as a citation for inhame. I'd encourage you to discuss the matter of adding the Azorean and Canarian name on the talk page, if you have consensus there then I see no problems with it.—I'llbeyourbeach (talk) 15:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Average Portuguese Joe, thanks for your ongoing contributions to the Hardiness zone article. As I explained at Talk:Hardiness zone#Original research though, according to WP:SYNTH it's not allowed to combine information from different sources to reach a conclusion not reached by either of those sources. It seems that you have continued to do that, for example in this edit: [1] and similar ones. So this is your second warning. I also noted the addition of material without any sources at all: [2], and it seems that it's not the first time you've been told about this either. Please try to ensure that your edits conform with the core content policies in the future, and are not based on your personal analysis or knowledge, thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 01:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

@IamNotU: Hey, sorry about that but I highly doubt there are any 11a zones in continental Spain, the source is an image not even an article and all the highly detailed articles I've found deny that that are any 11a zones in continental Spain. The places I mentioned in Portugal are places that never recorded any negative temperature (highly candidates to 11a zones). The best article so far I've encountered is this thesis made by a master's degree student which is based on a previous research made by spanish researchers in which it shows a Hardiness zone map for the Iberian Peninsula (shown on the pdf). The problem was it was focused more on Spain than in Portugal, so this thesis included a similar map for Portugal, but using the majority of the portuguese stations and, as it turns out, there are 11a zones in Portugal. [3]

The problem is I don't find the same detailed maps for Spain telling me that there are any 11a zones. And considering Spain is a lot bigger in size and population than Portugal there should be a lot more research and maps made for Spain than for Portugal and not just a low quality image of hardiness zones (which by the way are completely different than the ones shown on the pdf).

It is way more likely that Portugal has an 11a zone than Spain, the same effect that makes summer highs cooler in the coast is the same effect that makes winters lows milder and Spain just doesn't have that same effect on the mediterranean, ocean temperatures in the winter are warmer in Portugal than in Spain. So lows in the winter are certaintly warmer too. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Hello Average Portuguese Joe, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Dioscorea strydomiana: and Viburnum treleasei have been removed in whole or in part, as you added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. All other images must be made available under a free and open license that allows commercial and derivative reuse to be used on Wikipedia.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Diannaa: Yeah I clearly should have thought more about changing the phrasing and add more sources to what I was writting about before creating those articles. I will try to take this into account for future articles. Thank you for the warning. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 16:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sjeez, climate people seem to be a quite touchy bunch! I just want to say your work on plants is appreciated. Have you seen this page on rare species of Europe (I mostly wrote it): Habitats Directive? ... It's not even complete, more species were added in 2008. So many rare plants from Macaronesia which need articles... Leo Breman (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Leo Breman: Thank you! You're right! There are a lot Macaronesian endemisms without an article here on Wikipedia, which is really a shame. I will surely be working on some of those when I get the time to do so. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

I wanted to say something nice here. I see your articles come by at the 'new plant articles' page, they are fine, and indeed, many of these fascinating plants should at least have a stub! Leo Breman (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

The thudding noise you can hear is my head on my desk. Many many times. Ouch. Ouch, ouch. Ouch. DBaK (talk) 22:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Olá Average Portuguese Joe, Of course, I completely agree with you that Portugal is an integral part of Southern Europe. No official cards claim the contrary. Southern Europe only concerns the three peninsulas located in the far south of Europe. And Portugal is one of them. A wikipedia user wrote that to be in southern Europe you have to have a Mediterranean coast to justify putting France there. Which is of course totally wrong. For my part, I simply wanted to put most of the official maps, which places without contesting Portugal in southern Europe. For me there is no debate on Portugal, if you want to change part of the text, do it. :)--81.67.153.44 (talk) 10:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hey 81.67.153.44 (talk · contribs), thank you for sharing that. I was just a little sceptical about my edits being reverted, because that sentence obviously didn't make much sense. I'm sure you didn't do it on purpose. I also appreciate that Olá. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 15:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Hardiness zone. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Average Portuguese Joe, I previously mentioned problems with assigning hardiness zones to certain locations based on your own analysis, see § Unsourced edits and synthesis. It looks to me like you are still doing this, for example in this edit: [4] you seem to have changed the classification of a city, despite it being sourced, based on an analysis of German Meteorological Service values which don't include hardiness zones. I also previously addressed that specifically at Talk:Hardiness zone § Original research. Please be sure that any changes you make to sourced content can be verified in a published, reliable source, stating a specific hardiness zone, and not just temperature data that you interpret in order to arrive at a conclusion about zone classification. Thank you. IamNotU (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi IamNotU (talk · contribs), I am aware that I should edit according to a more direct source, but, can it really be considered original research? The official data of the lowest temperature of each month is there, the only thing that's not is a basic mean of those values. I did not include a city based on those averages, I just took it down a little bit as the map is spoiling the values a bit too much when you compare them with the German Meteorological Service ones. After all the hardiness zone is the average coldest temperature registered in a year, the only "original research" done here is a simple arithmetic mean. Still, I know I shouldn't do this, but finding a good written article about the hardiness of Spain, like I did with Portugal, is almost impossible, at least from what I've researched. But thank you for the heads-up. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I understand that it may be difficult to find reliable sources that specifically state hardiness zones. However, the core policies of Wikipedia are clear: such information must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. You said the only thing that's not is a basic mean of those values, but no, what's not there is any mention of hardiness zones. Combining temperature data from one source, with definitions of zones from another, in order to categorize a particular place, reaches a conclusion that is not reached by either of the individual sources, and that's clearly a synthesis that's considered original research. There may be more complex reasons that experts classify a place one way or another. As I've said, it's not up to Wikipedia editors to debate or decide which zone a place belongs in. If you can't find a published source that states it, it can't be included in Wikipedia. If you feel that any of the existing sources are unreliable, you can challenge them (see WP:RSN) and possibly remove the information, but not change it to something you think is more accurate based on your own research. For example, if you obtain consensus that the map isn't reliable, you can remove it, and the entire contents sourced to it, but not just one of the cities; you certainly can't just "take it down a little" because you disagree with the source. I'm not saying you're wrong about it, and I know it can be frustrating when you do a lot of research into something and have a good knowledge about it, but are not allowed to use your own knowledge to write the article... but that's how we have to do things. --IamNotU (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Average Portuguese Joe: Hello, we have talked about this in June 2020 and I don't know why you've deleted this today after 7 months. When it says "Málaga" or "Cádiz" it refers to the regions with that name, not at the cities themselves, take account that the German website is not valid for many of these areas within the map as that website has only official AEMET stations with long term averages, and as you know 90% of AEMET stations don't have long term averages. Read further as I've found a new source, the map you've deleted today comes from a factually accurate source (this map) made by the Spanish Agricultural Society as I have told you in June 2020. The map was there since 2015 and it has even been archived, it clearly shows zone 11 areas in coastal parts of the province of Cádiz, Málaga and Almería. This is all I wanted to say, there is no need to make an edit war nor another extended talk, we have a full study/work and a map that proves it and I think there is no reason to say that map is "unreliable" since it's based on real data.

I have found the original source and the full PDF where the map came from, it's an extended research made in 2004 by an Agricultural Engineer called José Manuel Sánchez de Lorenzo-Cáceres (nowadays it's most likely warmer, but this is the one where the map came from and shows detailed information for each province, so it's valid and accurate) this basically proves not only the 11 areas in Spain but also all of the other statements from the entire article regarding Spain's hardiness zones.^[1] Now with this solved, can someone search a source proving the other 11 areas mentioned on the page? If you see, only Spain and Portugal are proved with factual sources, but what about the other ones? No one has sourced them. Have a nice day! --TechnicianGB (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@TechnicianGB: I still do not agree with that map, there's obviously something wrong, weather it's the map from Portugal or the one from Spain, because the values simply do not stack up like they should on the border, e.g. the border with Amareleja where the thesis from Portugal puts it at 9b1, which is from -3.9°C to -2.5°C whereas the map from Spain puts it at a 10, starting at -1°C (which should start at -1.1°C but the article rounds it). And how the hell is the centre of Vila do Bispo 10b and Málaga (including the airport) 11? Btw the city of Cádiz apparently is not on zone 11 on the article but the Málaga airport is, see what I'm talking about? That is obviously not right. I am also 99% sure that 11a area in Portugal is way bigger than it's depicted on the map, but still pretty sure that Amareleja is not zone 10. But what am I to say it's not? I'll have to leave it as it is, but if I see a better credible source for Spain I will end up changing it. Cheers! Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Average Portuguese Joe: That's the most credible, accurate and trustworthy source about the hardiness zones of Spain, it's an extended study that took 6 years to be completed, made by an Agricultural Engineer with the help of INM (old AEMET name until 2008) and right now there isn't any single study/work/map regarding the Spanish Hardiness zones that's more accurate on a scale of usefulness unless if the own AEMET posts one or if another cathedratic makes another one as full of sources as this study. About the ones in Portugal I don't know as Portugal doesn't even appear in that work which is only for Spain, but yesterday for example Sagres had a low of 1.0ºC and two days ago 0.5ºC so 10b doesn't sound crazy. As for comparison, the airport of Málaga had yesterday a low of 1.6ºC yet the port of Málaga 5.7ºC and nearby coastal towns such as Fuengirola or Torremolinos have had 6.6ºC and 6.1ºC (all of this is AEMET data) which somehow proves the point of that map, yes the airport is clearly 10b but Málaga itself or nearby coastal cities/towns are 11a.

It's clear that 1-2 days don't show nothing but we can make an idea with that. Obviously, there isn't any map with 100% accuracy. Look another example since you talk about the Portuguese map, I can see that the 11a area of Portugal albeit being found in a very small coastal area, it's backed up by a source, so I also accept including it there. I would never say "I will delete it if I find another source" because it's properly sourced just as everything about the 11a areas in Spain. Well in fact if you look properly, even Águilas in Murcia has a 11a zone which makes sense too, as it's a sheltered microclimate, just compare their lows with the ones from nearby Cartagena over the past 5 days on the AEMET Observation website and you'll see the giant difference, one day the difference is as much as 4ºC which is crazy. Well, same example as Málaga airport, which yesterday was 4-5ºC colder than the port or nearby coastal cities, all within official AEMET data. But I didn't write "a small zone of Murcia is 11a" because I think it's too small and irrelevant to be considered.

And btw let's carry on about this subject as now we have a proper source I think we can close it already. Now, is there any source saying southern Cyprus has 11a areas? As for Malta and Lampedusa I don't think we need any source because it's clear that both places are 11a, Lampedusa all of it and Malta most if not all, but what about Cyprus? It's warmer, it has warmer highs, but they also get more affected by cold spells. Is there any real 11a zone there? Kind regards! --TechnicianGB (talk) 03:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@TechnicianGB: So you admit that map is wrong in some way, the fact that it includes not only the airport but the area more inland around it, if it did that with Málaga it probably did that with the other sites. Looking at the January lows map from AEMET [5] and comparing it to the hardiness map, most of the zone 10 is found (and almost superimposable) in places with a >5°C low, as for zone 11, it is mainly found in lows >7.5°C and disregarding that some places might have the same low but get colder, because were not in different parts of the world, we share the same peninsula; Portugal [6] would mostly be zone 10 in the southern half (yes I said half) and a big part of the west coast, even including Coimbra, but zone 10 for Barcelona's airport is plausible? Zone 11 would occupy half of the Barlavento Algarvio, a large area around Sines, the western coastal Lisbon Area (including Cascais) and Peniche. That's why I'm upset that the Portuguese pdf is strictly and precisely done while the Spanish pdf rounds the temperature criteria for the hardiness zones and is not precise at all. The standards are completely different, and it's not even USDA, how can you call that precise when instead of 4.4°C for zone 11, it uses 4°C?

One of the maps is certainly wrong and I'm betting for the Spanish one.

Take care. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Average Portuguese Joe: Nope, I have said there isn't any map with 100% precision but that's not wrong in any case. Btw it's not just a map it's a whole work. Yes it's not 100% millimetric as the Portuguese study, for example the airport is 10b but the city and nearby coastal cities/towns are 11a, we both know that. After the page 44 of that extended study/work you have the hardiness zones region by region where you can see it better. The study is based on INM (AEMET) stations to determine hardiness zones.

It has nothing to do with places with lows above 7.5ºC for zone 11 nor 5ºC for zone 10 and that stuff, AEMET added that data in their website in 2018 and this study is from 2004 using older data. Albeit this is based on real data, it's also common sense that the mildest areas will have higher hardiness zones, but not always, as for example Coruña's winter lows are one of the highest in the Iberian Peninsula as they average above 8ºC in all months and it's a 10b area. That map is not based on the low averages as that's not how hardiness zones are calculated as you know. And btw, there is also another 11a area in southern Spain (Motril) but they didn't include that station as it wasn't online yet, they used nearby Almuñecar which ends with 3.7ºC, thus is a 10b zone on the map.

This is my last edit regarding this topic, I don't want to make it longer, the source is realiable and imho that study is as precise as it can be and it's an extended work done by a Cathedratic using official data. I think better than fixating about which Spanish zones are 11a with microscopical precision (albeit having an extended reliable work with official data showing it as a source) why don't we just carry on and try to find for example the 11a areas of Cyprus? Regards mate, keep safe! --TechnicianGB (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Average Portuguese Joe: I can see your point on the map and I agree with the Macaronesian thing too. Yes, the map uses a +4ºC isotherm and USDA zone 11a starts at above +4.4ºC. But luckily the work also has written values.

Now look at the entire source, not only at the maps. As in the same source there are written values, and there are a handful of stations from the southern coast of Spain (provinces of Cádiz, Málaga and Almería) that are +4.4ºC as you can check by yourself, so that just proves the areas with the 11a zones in Spain, which are exactly as written in the article (parts of the provinces of Cádiz, Málaga and Almería) so you can't simply say they're "not 11a by USDA parameters" as the temperatures appear on the source.

I don't know why do you have these outbreaks every 1-2 months if we've talked about this since June 2020 and even an admin (IamNotU) said something above. Don't look just at the map, look at the values from the stations then. And well, I didn't add again "small areas" in Portugal even if they're marginal areas, as in reality all 11a areas are small in Europe. There is still unsourced text in that article which needs references regarding other 11a areas. Regards and stay safe! --TechnicianGB (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello Average Portuguese Joe, is there any reliable website or PDF (better if made by IPMA) showing the real extremes of Portugal from longer terms?

For example, I see that normally in 95% of the Portuguese climates the extremes are as long as the averages are, such as 1961-1990, 1971-2000 or 1981-2010 which doesn't represent too well the climate at all. For example there are PDFs regarding each station in IPMA but it's just for the 1971-2000 period, AEMET for example shows the historical averages since the station exists there, same for NOAA or the Dutch, German, British and such official agencies.

Is there any way to find this for Portugal? As for example Lisbon's lows are just from 1971-2000 or 1981-2010 (not even 1971-2010) and please check the data from Lisbon as it has 3 different stations within the IPMA site and the extreme temps don't match up with official data Lisbon Tapada da Ajuda (a station close to the city center at just 37 masl, located within a natural park) recorded -1.5ºC on 15 January 1985 and I think this should be included on both Lisbon and Climate of Lisbon pages. The Gago Coutinho station has also recorded 2 sub-zero lows but since it's the airport one located more on the outskirts on the city I wouldn't count it on the Lisbon page but better on the separate Climate of Lisbon one, but since Lisbon has 2 stations inside the city (Geofisico and Tapada da Ajuda) this data must be there, also Geofisico had a low of 0.4ºC in January 1971 (-1.2ºC in February 1956) not 1.0ºC as it states right now... could you please try to find some longer data for the extremes in Portugal? Thanks. --TechnicianGB (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi TechnicianGB (talk · contribs), great question. My opinion about the extremes for Portugal is they should be especially more up to date. Only on the exception of a few cases, most of the coldest temperatures ever recorded on each station were recorded prior to 1990 and a lot of them are still in the 1971-2000 normals, but a lot of the heat records are recent (as you would expect) and are missing from a lot of stations who only have 1971-2000 normals (which are most of them).

You can see the list I started some months ago of all the temperature extremes I could find: List of extreme temperatures in Portugal.

For this list I resorted to IPMA's Bulletins, which only started to include extremes for each month and for each important station from 2005 onwards; from this archive [7] which included all the temperature extremes up to its deletion (talk about that later) and from the 1971-2000 normals they provide; though from what I've seen from searching through all of those bulletins, certain ones have tables with the all-time record of each station for that month (for comparison of an exceptionally cold month), these are the only ones I could find [8][9]

This is where I get angry with IPMA. I believe the 1981-2010 averages were free to the public at one time, but in the last few years they deleted all the recent data and made them available only if you paid for it, which is absurd and ridiculous, and if you notice, none of the data for sunshine hours, humidity, wind speed, precipitation days is from 1981-2010. The data I have to work with is very limited that's why I am constantly searching for other sources that have IPMA's data (because I'm pretty sure IPMA is forced to share the data with the World Meteorological Organization and websites that have acess to that data e.g. the German Meteorological Service can therefore put them free to the public). Even had to dig out the 1981-2010 averages for Santarém.

I'm not much concerned for the extremes as all of the all-time lows and highs are easily (well not that easily) found. I'm more concerned over the actual averages. One thing is for sure, Lisbon never recorded a temperature bellow -1.5°C. I'm just waiting for the 1991-2020 averages to come out, as those 1981-2010 averages are labeled as "provisórias" (provisory) on IPMA, I'm hoping these will be free and will include all the variables.

If you want to see a table for a certain station with all the monthly records since the 1940's like AEMET does, honestly with the time I've been researching, I think that is impossible unless IPMA provides it. Even if it was possible it is not worth the time. I also believe temperature records should be referenced on a Weather Box starting from 1981 to today because a lot of the records from AEMET are almost 100 years. I think they should follow the normals. For example: Viseu recorded 44°C in 1932, but that record isn't obviously aplied to today when you compare it to recent extremes.

Hope this helps. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Average Portuguese Joe: Hello, thanks for your extended reply. You are right, it's a pity we can't see that. I also remember seeing that page by myself from the IPMA website which they have deleted a couple of years ago for no apparent reason, just as the 1981-2010 provisional values were available before and they're not right now, I simply can't understand why. I hope this will be solved soon since 1991-2020 is being prepared already, at least AEMET is doing it (they even have a 1991-2020 provisional extended work made in December with 2 months left) and I guess IPMA is doing the same too, they should release at least the 1981-2010 normal averages.

That meteo-climat-bzh website is very good and it actually shows only official temps just as OGIMET does, it's a pity that website is very slow and it doesn't work often, but yet they don't have all the stations. But it would be nice to see all from IPMA, I know they've had the coldest and hottest temperature for the listed stations (just as that archived website you shown me) it's a pity they don't have it for each month, it would be great. OGIMET is also a very good website to get data from, although you have to see it month by month.

About the Lisbon climate thing well, looking at the difference with Tapada da Ajuda and Geofisico I think Tapada might have reached at least -2ºC the day Geofisico went -1.2ºC (that's extremely cold for Geofisico which has only recorded 2 freezes from 1940 to 2020) but as you know 1954-1956 were extremely cold all over the Iberian Peninsula, with Cádiz for example reaching it's only negative temperature on record (-1.0ºC) and with extremely crazy temps in Valencia for example that the 2nd closest record is 3ºC warmer than in that event, even the inland airport was warmer that day! So yes I mean that year was exceptional. Just as the extreme cold we have had this year in Spain and Portugal, here (inland Spain, like León or Madrid) we have reached historical lows and snowfalls, just as I've seen even Sagres (which is extremely mild) went under 1ºC one day, it's crazy! Do you have the lowest temperatures in the stations of Lisbon during 11-12 January 2020? I know Setúbal went well below freezing but Lisbon is much milder.

I know it didn't freeze in Lisbon neither, but did you record their lowest temps during the past week? This is just useful data I would like to know for myself, if you prefer you can send me the information by email or something. Also, do you know how many snowfall events sees Lisbon lets say in a decade? Or in a century? Also buddy, if you have any question related to Spain feel free to ask it, it's always nice to share a bit of knowledge and to learn from eachothers. I have also found extended AEMET reports about the Spanish climatology, if you're interested in them just ask me for them and I'll link you the studies, as we both like climatology, I think it would be interesting to share some Iberian common acknowledge. Kind regards, have a nice week! --TechnicianGB (talk) 02:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@TechnicianGB: Snow in Lisbon is actually more common than you would think for such temperatures when you compare it to the Spanish east coast and I think that has simply to do with the average winter precipitation. I know some small bits of snow fell in 2018 after the sun set with a temperature at "soil level" of 11°C, then 2006, then 1974, but is never really true snow, unless maybe in 1956 and there's footage of it.

The temperatures registered within a 10 day period apear here [10], out of the 3 stations, Tapada went 0.0°C in 13 January and Gago Coutinho 0.9°C in 2 days and the rest was above 2°C.

That link I showed you makes me believe some stations in IPMA are wrong, especially the lows, I know this is a big thing to say but let me give you some examples, Aljezur in the Algarvian west coast just recorded -6.3°C on 12 January, literally the only thing colder than that that day were the cities in the cold northeast at 1000m altitude, the funny thing is the station at Fóia right next to Aljezur at 900m alt. registered 0.3°C and almost never registered a temperature bellow freezing. I believe the station at Fóia is right because max's aren't that high either (around 9°C that week), it heats up quickly in the morning and the southwest of Portugal is extremely wet and mild in winter, one of the last refuges of the original laurisilva forest, but that -6.3 just looks absurd especially because it's the west coast and it's south. Costa da Caparica in this August recorded a 12°C AVERAGE low for at least a week when the rest of the stations next to it (including Lisbon) registered around 18°C, that's the same as Galway, Ireland. There's a few other examples but won't get into details. Maxes always seem right though, it's just the lows that confuse me. Take care! Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Average Portuguese Joe: Thanks for the useful information, I will also try to find more data, maybe asking on a Portuguese site or to IPMA themselves? I also know AEMET is not far from publishing the 1991-2020 climatic guide which maybe will luckily include Portugal and the whole Macaronesia on it. About that Málaga thing, yes most likely we won't find any other source specifically talking about the "sheltering" of the city with the winds, but well that can remain there to see if someone else can find something related. About the extremes thing I have mixed up 1971-2010 extremes in the last climate chart in the page of Climate of Lisbon, if there were any records broken in the 2010-2020 period feel free to include them as well! --TechnicianGB (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Realmente te estoy sumamente agradecido. Afortunadamente existen personas solidarias dispuestas a ayudar a los demás como usted. Lo que sucede es que (como decía mi mensaje anterior) en mi país es muy difícil acceder a una computadora con internet: tener eso se considera casi un privilegio aquí; mientras que el internet en teléfonos móviles no existió en mi país hasta hace tres años. Pero me apasiona poder contribuir a mejorar y expandir Wikipedia, y trato de hacerlo siempre a pesar de la falta de recursos tecnológicos en mi país. Soy de Cuba, aunque realmente tengo doble nacionalidad: cubana y española (ésta última heredada de mi padre) aunque siempre he vivido en Cuba. Nuevamente, GRACIAS por la ayuda.

Por cierto, tengo una pregunta: ¿Eres de Portugal? Lo pregunto por tu nombre de usuario Aziyade Gil (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Aziyade Gil: No es necesario agradecer. ¡Si! Soy de Portugal y muy orgulloso de mi país. Afortunadamente mi país está en buenas condiciones. No sé lo difícil que es vivir en un país con estas condiciones, pero espero que algún día tengas más posibilidades de hacer lo que te gusta.

¡Saludos desde Portugal! Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Gracias por las buenas espectativas que me has deseado. En todo caso aquí tienes mi correo electrónico: leonardourbanoacuna@gmail.com

No se si en algún momento yo te pueda ofrecer alguna ayuda, pero si así fuera ahí lo tienes y así podemos comunicarnos. Saludos desde Cuba!

Aziyade Gil (talk) 21:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have edited the page showing up the climate data on the upper part of the page (as you wanted) instead where it was before at the bottom, it's better this way rather than repeating again the same chart as now all stations are shown in an upper place.

About the Hardiness Zone I left it untouched, I just added 10a/10b because some more inland zones of Lisbon are 10a such as the district of Telheiras but I don't have any problem keeping 10b as you wrote. Keep safe! --TechnicianGB (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have seen you reverted again my change, I don't understand why did you do it again if I have moved the entire section containing the climate normals on an upper part of the page. Why do you want the same box to be repeated 3 times instead of moving that section to an upper place? It doesn't make sense... But well if it's important for you I won't edit it again, as I have empathy for you as you know already. If you want to keep it that way I'll let it be. See ya! --TechnicianGB (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@TechnicianGB: As I said in the answer on my edit, this took time, the chart acts as an intro to the climate, It is very unnecessary to keep scrolling up to see normals that should be in the normals section in the first place (or precipitation in that case too). This is a climate article obviously the temperature is going to play a big role and I don't mind if it repeats 2 times (although in a different, much easier to read format), I don't really consider the info at the bottom relevant but apparently almost all climate articles have them. So in my opinion, this format (which is similar to New York's article) is very much organized.

I just saw your second response, thanks for understanding my point of view and keeping it that way. Cheers! Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello, one incomplete year of climate/weather data is by any means not acceptable in Wikipedia except for having it in your own page or sandbox. Have you tried what you can do in Wikipedia:Sandbox? I also recommend moving there all the useful climate data you have in your own main page Average Portuguese Joe (talk · contribs) (just a recommendation) I will copy and paste here the data you posted on the Savage Islands page. Regards! --TechnicianGB (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ha sido hoy que vi tu ultimo mensaje, estuve enfrentando algunas dificultades para acceder a mi usuario. En todo caso aquí tienes mi correo electrónico: leonardourbanoacuna@gmail.com

No se si en algún momento yo te pueda ofrecer alguna ayuda, pero si así fuera ahí lo tienes y así podemos comunicarnos. Saludos desde Cuba! Aziyade Gil (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hola de nuevo colega: No se si me recuerdes: soy el usuario que te pidió ayuda para crear el artículo "Mauricio Lomonte" en Wikipedia en inglés. Ante todo, perdoname por molestarte de nuevo. Lo que sucede es que hace apenas unos minutos me he encontrado con un problema y necesito (si es posible) tu ayuda otra vez. El problema es que hay un artículo en Wikipedia en inglés llamado "Radio Taíno", pero cuando se accede a su equivalente en español (que también se llama "Radio Taíno") a través del botón de los enlaces interlinguisticos, entonces desde el artículo en español el botón de los enlaces ínter lingüísticos aparece en blanco: Como si las equivalencias en otros idiomas no existieran. Pienso que quizás eso sucede porque el artículo "Radio Taíno" en español no está enlazado a Wikidata, ya que eso es lo que dice debajo de la ficha técnica (plantilla) del artículo, aunque no estoy seguro de que sea eso. Quisiera pedirte por favor que revisaras ese problema por mí, porque (por lo que yo sé) otra de las cosas que no se pueden hacer sin tener una computadora es editar los enlaces ínter lingüísticos o Wikidata en general. Te pido (por favor y si no es molestia) que me ayudes con eso. De antemano, muchas gracias. Aziyade Gil (talk) 04:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hola @Aziyade Gil:! Puedo acceder al equivalente, no sé por qué no puedes ... quizás tenga que ver con el hecho de que estoy en una computadora, pero te puedo decir que no hay problema con el equivalente en Español - Inglés. Probablemente se deba al hecho de que el artículo es reciente, pero ahora está bien, creo. No necesitas preocuparte. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 01:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hola Joe:

Te escribo para decirte que vi tu mensaje acerca de que el artículo "Amadeo de Souza Cardoso" necesitaba expansión y podía hacerse con contenido de su artículo equivalente en portugués.

Pues tomé la iniciativa de hacerlo y lo he expandido. Aunque debo confesarte que para eso he tenido que auxiliarme un poco con el traductor de Google, ya que mi dominio del idioma inglés no es demasiado avanzado.

Quisiera pedirte que revises mi trabajo y por favor me respondas para hacerme saber si mi humilde esfuerzo en mejorar ese artículo ha valido la pena. Siempre que pueda colaboraré con los artículos que tu pidas, creo que es lo mínimo que puedo hacer para agradecer la ayuda que tú me brindaste cuando yo la necesité.

¡Saludos desde Cuba! Y por favor, recuerda responderme para saber si mi trabajo estuvo bien hecho. Aziyade Gil (talk) 04:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Aziyade Gil: ¡Por supuesto que valió la pena! Gracias por tu esfuerzo. Normalmente pongo esta template para otros editores que hablan portugués, pero puedo decir que hiciste un buen trabajo. Solo para que quede claro, no te hice hacer nada, pero me gustó la iniciativa. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

The word "Moors" is not a race, but it was a name given to the Arabs and Mozrabs, and then it was applied to the Philippines and the various peoples. How are the Moors not Arabs? the name "Moors" was a name given only as an insult to both arabs or mozrabs Xasazx123 (talk) 14:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Xasazx123: I am not saying the Moors aren't Arabs, Moors is a more precise denomination of an Arab, it is a Muslim that inhabited Europe, or, in this case, the Iberian Peninsula, in the Middle Ages. Arab is a much broader word. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Average Portuguese Joe: Well in fact that's true, Moors are a much more specific word (and used in history books) for the Al-Andalus conquest in the Iberian Peninsula. Arab is a much broader word, and it's not specifically related to muslims, as in the world there are millions of Arab Christians and one of the point of the moors than conquered the Iberian Peninsula was their religion, so I agree "moors" is much better said. It's used in many history books. --TechnicianGB (talk) 00:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

(knock, knock - brought here via Xasazx's edit history) I would disagree with this description of 'Moor' as more precise than 'Arab' - it was just imprecise in a different manner. It was used as a generic term to encompass all the non-native Muslims of Iberia, excluding Arabs who were not Muslim (or who were outside of the geographical sphere of interest), but including Muslims who were not Arab, such as Berbers and the occasional sub-Saharan African. In the Middle Ages, the only Muslims seemingly excluded from this term in Iberian usage were the Muladi (native converts), and in the later period of the expulsions and Inquisition it tended to include them too, encompassing all Muslims independent of ethnicity. The overall conclusion is unchanged: the term was not equivalent to Arab and arbitrarily changing from one to the other changes the meaning of sourced material. Agricolae (talk) 13:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have added the El Prat AEMET station in the Barcelona page, just as I've added info about the snowfalls occurring near the city in the Collserola mountains (Fabra Observatory, official AEMET station at 410 masl) so just to show you how I put a lot of effort on my side to be nice to you as you really wanted to do these changes, I agree as well, there isn't any problem as long as we say things how they are. But I won't ask you again to be always nice and polite when editing in Wikipedia, as you personally attacked me saying I just write by "personal assumptions" and that's not right. Nevermind, let's forget that issue. The only thing I'd ask you is to not to add that text again because it's based on the El Prat averages, and as you know, that's not exactly representative of Barcelona city itself.

Cheers. --TechnicianGB (talk) 00:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

If a species is native to Region1, and Region1 is part of Region2, we don't use both "[Endemic] Flora of Region1" and "[Endemic] Flora of Region2". So if a species occurs only in Spain, don't use both "Endemic Flora of Spain" and "Endemic Flora of the Iberian Peninsula". You can use "Endemic Flora of the Iberian Peninsula" for plants native to Spain and Portugal. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Peter coxhead: The thing is "Region2" is not always contained in "Region1". There are a lot of species in the main category "Endemic Flora of Spain" which are not native to the Peninsula, but to small islands. Same with Portugal. Balearic Islands, Berlengas, etc...

And it doesn't make much sense to include species in the Category:Endemic Flora of the Iberian Peninsula only when it is native to both countries (not to mention that by that logic the endemic species would also need to be present in Gibraltar and Andorra to count as endemic to the Peninsula). In that case the category's name would need to be changed to "Endemic flora of both continental Portugal and continental Spain" which is not even a region as the species must be native only to both of those places. I think that the rule doesn't really apply here, I would consider a peninsula as completely unrelated to a country, but that's just my opinion.

Buf if you don't want me to put those species in that category, I won't. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 23:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

This is an example of when the names of the distribution categories cause problems. You need to look at the explanations on the category pages. The regions used for flora distributions are defined by the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions (WGSRPD). In the case of Spain and Portugal (and other country names), the regions are not countries. For example, Category:Flora of Spain excludes the Balearic Islands, etc., but includes Andorra and Gibraltar. Category:Flora of Portugal is only for mainland/peninsular Portugal, and excludes Portuguese Macaronesia. I would strongly prefer the categories to have different names (like "Flora of mainland Spain" or "Flora of Spain (WGSRPD)"), but I have never been able to persuade other editors to agree.

So actually, "Spain (WGSRPD)" + "Portugal (WGSRPD)" = Iberian Peninsula. If a plant is only found in both of these WGSRPD regions, then it's endemic to the Iberian Peninsula. If it's found in the Balearic Islands, then it goes in Category:Flora of the Balearic Islands, which is not a subcategory of Category:Flora of Spain. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hola Joe:

Espero que me recuerdes, soy el usuario al que ayudaste a crear el artículo "Mauricio Lomonte". Ante todo espero que estés bien.

Colega, esta vez recurro a ti (y por cierto, perdona que te moleste) por un problema que tengo con mi usuario, con la esperanza de que quizá sepas qué puedo hacer para solucionarlo:

Sucede que desde hace más de un mes, cuando trato de acceder a mi usuario desde el teléfono móvil que yo siempre he usado, me aparece este mensaje en inglés:

"There seems to be a problem with your login session; this action has been cancelled as a precaution against session hijacking. Please resubmit the form. You may receive this message if you are blocking cookies"

Y cuando trato de acceder a mi usuario desde Wikipedia en español me sale el equivalente a ese mismo mensaje en dicho idioma.

Y sin embargo, aún puedo editar perfectamente como usuario anónimo desde ese móvil. Pero solo como usuario anónimo.

De hecho, debido a esa situación sólo ahora he visto tu respuesta a mi mensaje sobre el artículo de "Amadeo de Souza Cardoso". Este mensaje te lo estoy escribiendo con el móvil de un familiar al que se lo pedí prestado, para poder acceder a mi usuario y así pedirte ayuda.

Por favor, ¿sabes cómo puedo arreglar esa situación?

Te agradecería mucho si me pudieras ayudar. Al menos quisiera pedirte que me respondieras para saber si tienes alguna idea sobre ese problema. De antemano, muchas gracias.

Saludos desde Cuba!

Por cierto, perdona si vez este mensaje repetido, porque después de enviarlo la primera vez cometí un error y creo que lo eliminé, así que volví a enviarlo. Aziyade Gil (talk) 02:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Aziyade Gil: Hola Aziyade! Desafortunadamente no sé por qué tienes este problema. Cualquier cosa siempre puede crear una nueva cuenta. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Muchas gracias por responderme y también por tu explicación. Aunque realmente creo que el problema lo tiene el teléfono móvil que siempre usé anteriormente, porque he tratado de crear nuevas cuentas desde ese móvil y me sucede lo mismo.

No obstante, ésta cuenta que uso sigue funcionando bien desde cualquier otro teléfono móvil. Así que supongo que si consigo otro teléfono sería el mejor modo de solucionar el problema. Mientras tanto seguiré utilizando el teléfono de mi hermano ocasionalmente para hacer mis ediciones y seguiré tratando de colaborar con los artículos que tú señales que pueden expandirse de su equivalente en portugués.

Nuevamente, MUCHAS GRACIAS POR TU AYUDA. Aziyade Gil (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hola Joe:

Te escribo este mensaje para decirte que desde hace algunos días he estado expandiendo el artículo "Maria Keil" al que tú añadiste la plantilla de que podía expandirse de su equivalente en portugués y hace unos minutos mientras lo expandía otro usuario revirtió todas mis ediciones, en mi opinión sin motivo alguno, ya que toda la información era referenciada y sin vandalismo ninguno.

Quisiera pedirte, si no es molestia, que te comunicaras con ese usuario y le explicaras que yo solo me dedicaba a expandir y mejorar ese artículo, y si es posible restaurar las ediciones que hice.

Yo estaba expandiendo ese artículo con la esperanza de poder darte una sorpresa agradable al comunicártelo cuando lo terminara. Pero ya ves, sucedió este inconveniente. Aún no entiendo por qué ese usuario revirtió mis ediciones. Por favor, si te comunicas con ese usuario, envíame un mensaje después para saber que sucedió y cuáles son sus argumentos.

Siempre un placer comunicarme contigo Joe, saludos mi estimado colega. Aziyade Gil (talk) 07:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Aziyade Gil: Esto fue solo un malentendido, quien invirtió pensó que lo había copiado de un sitio web poco confiable, cuando, de hecho, había traducido el artículo al portugués con las fuentes. ¡Buen trabajo! Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 12:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Muchas gracias Joe.

Mañana me pondré en función de seguir mejorando ese artículo, porque ahora mismo te escribo desde el teléfono móvil de mi hermano y debo devolvérselo.

Mi mayor aprecio y saludos para ti, colega!

 Aziyade Gil (talk) 04:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hola Joe:

Te escribo este mensaje para darte dos noticias. Una es que ya terminé la expansión y mejora del artículo "María Keil" y quisiera pedirte que revisaras la ortografía y gramática del contenido que añadí.

La otra noticia es que el mismo usuario que había revertido anteriormente todas mis ediciones, hace algunas horas lo volvió a hacer, aunque esta vez solo revirtió una de mis últimas ediciones: en la categoría "Style and works" revirtió la tipografía Italic (letra cursiva) a las opiniones de los críticos acerca de la obra de Maria Keil, cuando en realidad en el contenido original de Wikipedia en portugués eso aparece representado con letras cursivas. Además, las letras cursivas en ese caso son útiles, porque resaltan el hecho de que eso son específicamente comentarios de personas. Y sin embargo, en la sección del artículo llamada "Biography" no quitó las cursivas. Te comento esto para saber si es posible restaurar esas últimas ediciones que hice y que fueron revertidas.

Te agradeceré si pudieras responderme, Joe. Así sabré si esa edición era correcta o no. Saludos para ti! Aziyade Gil (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ya aclaré mi duda, realmente comprobé que en Wikipedia en inglés los testimonios de personas no se resaltan con letras cursivas, estuve investigando eso y pude comprobarlo en otras páginas donde aparecen testimonios de personas. Aziyade Gil (talk) 04:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hola Joe:

Te escribo este mensaje para decirte que expandí el artículo "Francisco Keil de Amaral" con contenido de su equivalente en portugués. Espero que te parezca bien como quedó.

Sólo quería comentarte una duda que tengo: Cuando expandí el artículo de Maria Keil solo tuve un problema que no pude solucionar, y es que las dos imágenes que aparecían en la sección "Obras" del artículo en portugués quise añadirselas también al artículo en inglés. Pero cuando añadí los archivos a wikipedia en inglés las imágenes no se veían, ninguna de las dos. Lo que quisiera saber es por qué sucede eso. Tú lo sabes?... Te agradecería si pudieras responderme para aclarar mi duda.

Saludos para ti. Aziyade Gil (talk) 01:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cela, Alcobaça, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alcobaça.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Selvagens gecko is now considered a subspecies of Boettger's wall gecko per Reptile database.... (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Is it good for you now? and please, next time try to evade "attacks" or to make assumptions about other editor's edits I made a very small improvement and I've put at last the unsourced places. Take care of yourself. --TechnicianGB (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yes it's good now thank you. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 09:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Joe! I've noticed that you edit articles about Portugal a lot. I was wondering if you might be interested in contributing to Portugal travel articles on Wikivoyage, a Wikipedia sister project. We recently launched a "Portugal Expedition" to coordinate improvement of our travel articles about the country's destinations. Please stop by if you would like to participate. I hope to see you there! Nelson Ricardo (talk) 06:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

I wonder if you would consider re-instating the image I had added to the Flag of Portugal page, perhaps at a smaller size. My reason for suggesting it is that it is otherwise a rather austere page with a lot of objects and flags, and few people. The image I suggested has a smiling person in colorful dress carrying a large Portuguese flag, and I feel it is a welcoming presence on the page, and conveys Portuguese culture and pride in the flag. If you disagree, I will respect your decision. - Kzirkel (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Kzirkel: I do like the photo, in fact if I had to choose any photo of a person carrying a Portuguese flag it would be that one, but currently there is an overload of photos in both articles. The similar photo you added to Portuguese Americans is well suited and the article has enough space. I wouldn't have any problem leaving that photo in if the Portuguese people article had sufficient space, I might have to delete some photos to put that one instead. Regarding the Flag of Portugal article, the problem here is that there is no specific section for the photo to be put adequately, for example, the Flag of the United States article has a "Display and use" section. The Portuguese Flag article, as I'm speaking, does not have anything similar to that yet and doesn't talk much about its modern use (which is a shame). And I think there is no point in putting an image when no section in the article talks about or is directly related to the subject or the matter in the picture.

If you still don't agree with me you can always put that in the talk of the article and see what other editors think. Again this is not to discredit your photo which I find quite valuable. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 23:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Kzirkel: Hey, just to let you know I managed to add one of your photos to the "Portuguese people" article. If you find the one above more helpful you can switch it. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Average Portuguese Joe:Neat, thanks! I will leave it to your judgment on this, as with the other. - Kzirkel (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Trás-os-Montes (region), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bragança.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Average Portuguese Joe: you made a reversion in which you justify as follows: "Like it's said in the Administrative history section of the article. This article is about the general region that has appeared as a comarca, province, intermunicipality, etc... There is already an article for the province." The problem is that the Trás-os-Montes region never existed. In fact, in Portugal there were never Administrative Regions, what existed were Administrative Provinces and Statistical Regions. Trás-os-Montes existed as an administrative province between 1832 and 1835, when it was replaced by the districts of Vila Real and Bragança, as administrative divisions. The districts remained as administrative divisions of Portugal, between 1835 and 1936. In 1936, a new territorial reorganization of Portugal created new provinces as administrative divisions, when the Province of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro was created. These administrative provinces lasted until 1959, when the Districts returned as administrative divisions, which still last until today. In relation to the statistical regions of the European Union, the Trás-os-Montes Region never existed. What existed between 1990 and 2013 was the NUTS III sub-region, Alto Trás-os-Montes. Since 2013, the sub-region Alto Trás-os-Montes has been subdivided into the sub-regions of Alto Tâmega and Terras de Trás-os-Montes, statistical sub-regions that are in force until today. This way, you will be able to verify that there was never any "general region that appeared as county, province, intermunicipal, etc..." with the name of Trás-os-Montes (region). Sanjorgepinho (talk) 13:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Sanjorgepinho: I think you are confusing administrative divisions with cultural areas. Yes, there was never an official census designated or administrative area called "Trás-os-montes Region" but along time, there were several administrative areas (Trás-os-Montes Comarca, Trás-os-Montes Province, Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro Province, Alto Trás-os-Montes NUTS subregion, Terras de Trás-os-Montes Intermunicipal Community) in which the name "Trás-os-Montes" featured, all encompassed similar areas. Restricting Trás-os-Montes to a province is limiting it to the 15th century-1976 period. The article Trás-os-Montes (region) is not to be confused with the other statistical areas, but rather a cultural area. Even the name Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro implies that there was a cultural region designated as Trás-os-Montes long before the province existed. Also, changing the name to Province wouldn't make much sense to the article as there are already two articles with that name. If your problem is with the term "Region", that can be changed to "Area" or "Historical Region", etc... if you want, but "Province" is very restrictive. If you have any questions or objections let me know. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Average Portuguese Joe: Thanks for the answer. I am not confusing. An article to exist must be clear, make sense and must not confuse readers. It is either Trás-os-Montes or Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro. If you notice, this article is identified as "region" of Trás-os-Montes and a map of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro. About the title of the article yes, it is a problem for me to call it Region. So please change the name of this article. Sanjorgepinho (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Good morning Joe

Do you have a view on this issue? Talk:Azores#Azores:_Notable_people

ArbieP (talk) 11:06, 15 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hola Joe:

Ante todo espero que estés bien. Te escribo para decirte que expandí el artículo "Bernardino Machado", al que tú le pusiste la plantilla de que podía expandirse con texto traducido de Wikipedia en portugués.

Quería comentarte que afortunadamente ya solucioné aquél problema que tenía para acceder a mi usuario desde el teléfono móvil que yo usaba antes: ahora uso un nuevo teléfono móvil. Todo parece indicar que el problema radicaba en aquél teléfono móvil y no en mi cuenta de usuario, pues desde que uso este nuevo móvil he podido editar Wikipedia sin ningún problema.

Aunque últimamente mis ediciones en Wikipedia en inglés han sido más bien sencillas, porque he estado enfocado en actualizar y expandir algunos artículos de Wikipedia en español. Realmente me he enfocado tanto en editar Wikipedia en inglés que desde hace algún tiempo casi no editaba Wikipedia en español.

Aunque debo confesarte que realmente me gusta más Wikipedia en inglés (porque generalmente sus artículos tiene más calidad), pero cuando lo pienso creo que no es correcto criticar los defectos que pueda tener Wikipedia en español. Creo que eso incluso sería una ingratitud de mi parte, ya que a fin de cuentas cuando antes de 2018 aún no había Internet legal para la población en mi país, yo aclaraba todas mis dudas con la versión instalable de Wikipedia en español para computadoras sin Internet. Así que por eso también me siento en deuda con Wikipedia en español y con el mejoramiento de su calidad.

De hecho, el primer artículo que yo edité en Wikipedia, aún siendo usuario anónimo, fue "Programa de exención de visa" (cuyo equivalente en inglés es "Visa Waiver Program"), es un artículo que se refiere a los países cuyos ciudadanos pueden viajar sin visa a Estados Unidos. Todo comenzó porque mientras yo leía ese artículo noté que en la parte superior estaba puesta la plantilla que decía que ese artículo necesitaba más referencias para comprobar su verificabilidad. Mientras pasaba el tiempo, me era frustrante ver cómo nadie añadía referencias al artículo y la plantilla seguía ahí. Así que apliqué el concepto de un refrán en idioma español que dice: "Si Mahoma no va a la montaña, la montaña va a Mahoma" (no sé si en tu país exista un equivalente de ese refrán en idioma portugués). En fin, fue así como como comencé a editar Wikipedia y después sentí la necesidad de seguir mejorando otros artículos ya fuera añadiendo referencias, haciendo enlaces, actualizando contenido, etcétera. Y algún tiempo después comencé a editar Wikipedia en inglés.

Bueno, en conclusión: Ahí tienes el artículo de Bernardino Machado para revisar mis ediciones. ¡Es todo tuyo!

Saludos desde Cuba Aziyade Gil (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hola Joe:

Te escribo este mensaje para contarte que descubrí que ES POSIBLE CREAR ARTÍCULOS EN WIKIPEDIA DESDE El TELÉFONO MÓVIL, esa información me la dió un usuario llamado Bruno René Vargas (que también edita Wikipedia en español y Wikipedia en inglés). Solo hay que poner el teléfono móvil en "modo escritorio" y las posibilidades son las mismas que cuando se trabaja en una computadora. Gracias a eso ya pude crear dos artículos sin ningún problema en Wikipedia en alemán llamados "Canal Habana" y "Cubavisión", cuyo contenido me lo tradujo previamente una traductora profesional.

No sé si tú sabrías que eso es posible, pero (en caso de que no lo supieras) quería hacértelo saber en caso de que te pueda ser útil, pues yo te estoy muy agradecido porque tú me ayudaste a mí cuando yo lo necesité.

Poner el teléfono móvil en modo escritorio es muy fácil, pero aún así aquí te dejo el enlace a un sitio web que ese usuario me envió y que contiene las instrucciones:

https://www.lowi.es/blog/navegador-del-movil-en-modo-escritorio/amp/ Aziyade Gil (talk) 21:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Solo quisiera pedirte ayuda en algo más, Joe:

También he creado un artículo en Wikipedia en inglés con la biografía de una socióloga y sexóloga alemana llamada Monika Krause-Fuchs. Realmente ese artículo lo creé como una traducción de un artículo original de Wikipedia en alemán llamado "Monika Krause-Fuchs" (el mismo nombre que le dí al artículo equivalente que yo creé en Wikipedia en inglés), pero al cabo de algunas horas de haberlo creado, otro usuario lo convirtió en un "Draft" (proyecto) argumentando que tenía falta de calidad.

Desde que sucedió eso he estado mejorando el contenido del "Draft" y añadiéndole referencias, pero el problema ahora radica en que no sé cómo hacer para solicitar que vuelva a ser convertido en artículo. Con los artículos que creé en Wikipedia en alemán no tuve ningún problema, pero no esperaba que surgiera toda esta complicación al crear un artículo en Wikipedia en inglés.

Por eso te pido, POR FAVOR, tu ayuda. Quisiera pedirte que revisaras el proyecto de artículo "Monika Krause-Fuchs" que yo he creado y valores si ya está apto para ser convertido en artículo y (en caso de ser posible) si tú pudieras solicitar por mí su conversión en artículo.

A continuación te dejo la dirección URL del proyecto que he creado:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Monika_Krause-Fuchs?markasread=227864618&markasreadwiki=enwiki#/editor/0

De antemano te pido disculpas por molestarte una vez más y muchas gracias por tomarte la molestia de leer mi mensaje Aziyade Gil (talk) 21:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Aziyade Gil: En cuanto a la revisión del artículo, creo que solo los administradores pueden hacerlo. Pero puedes intentar crear el artículo nuevamente con todas las referencias. Perdón si mi español suena extraño, siendo portugués, solo entiendo español, escribir y hablar es más difícil. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 22:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Aziyade Gil: Como yo lo veo, el artículo ya está creado (ya no es un stub) así que ya no hay problema. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Si, lo que sucede es que después de escribirte a tí, se me ocurrió hacer exactamente eso que dijiste: creé el artículo nuevamente con todas las referencias. Pero aún así me quedé preocupado de haber violado alguna regla de Wikipedia al hacer eso. Así que busqué una tercera opinión de otro usuario hispanohablante de Wikipedia en inglés llamado Alexcalamaro.

Él me dijo que eso que yo había hecho no representaba ningún problema, y además notificó a los administradores explicando la situación y los registros de las ediciones en el historial del Draft fueron fusionados con los registros del historial del artículo nuevo que creé.

Muchas gracias, Joe. Por cierto, sin ninguna adulación te garantizo que tú español no suena extraño. Al contrario, al menos como lo escribes es perfectamente comprensible. Siempre he leído en algunos artículos acerca de comprensión interlinguística que para los lusoparlantes es más fácil comprender el español y sin embargo no tanto así a la inversa: según estudios lingüísticos, a los hispanohablantes le es un poco más complejo entender el portugués. Aunque yo, al menos cuando es escuchándolo fonéticamente, logro entender bastante.

Saludos Aziyade Gil (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Por cierto, quisiera que me dijeras si te fue útil el enlace al sitio web que te envié con las instrucciones sobre cómo crear artículos desde el teléfono móvil Aziyade Gil (talk) 23:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Since I have seen you've deleted a chart based on official WMO data, can I ask you why? Is there any problem with the official World Meteorological Organization data? As far as I know, that's an official agency and a top tier highly trusted site in Wikipedia as well.

Replying to your reason for that deletion, as you might know already, AEMET's stations with public long term averages are less than 10% of their entire network (compare the AEMET observación stations to the ones that offer normal averages)^[3] others have even long term averages but it's not public data, as it happens with IPMA. They can be requested by official organisms/agencies like the WMO or other authorities, or by public associations by paying a fee for each station.^[4] That's how they make their maps actually.

And by the way, Marbella's official AEMET station is exactly on a small sand dock by the sea, far from any kind of urban heat island effect, as opposite to what you might think because it's not in the town center or something. It's in fact far from it in a low density area, as proved by AEMET themselves on their website http://www.aemet.es/es/eltiempo/observacion/ultimosdatos?k=and&l=6083X&w=2&datos=det&x=&f=tmax as the coordinates of the station are 36° 29' 1" N 4° 44' 25" W check that on Google Earth or Maps.

The other official AEMET station in Marbella, called Marbella Puerto station, coordinates 36° 29' 4" N 4° 57' 11" W is located exactly on land with grass under it, again in a small dock within a low density area and just by the sea as well. This time in the complex of a small recreational boat area. Both stations can be seen with Street View. Again, this is proved by the AEMET website http://www.aemet.es/es/eltiempo/observacion/ultimosdatos?k=and&l=6076X&w=2&datos=det&x=&f=tmax as they include the coordinates as well.

So both official stations from Marbella are far from any UHI and neither in a rooftop nor under concrete. The WMO takes data from one of these, not sure which one, probably the Marbella Puerto station given the fact it's considerably milder than the another one, at least comparing recent data. There isn't any single reason in the world to delete such a reliable data coming from an official source. I understand deleting dubious sources like climate-data.org and similar sites, but this is not that case. And the large scale 1/1.000.000 AEMET map is very good, but it obviously has leaks and it can't have an extreme precision. If a reliable source has specific data for somewhere, that's enough for preferring it over a large scale map. Take care. --TechnicianGB (talk) 03:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@TechnicianGB: Well, I am going to give you my thoughts on why WMO data should not count as official data. I suppose that, since all oficial stations are part of the WMO station network, WMO has access to all AEMET stations. WMO is the highest meteorological organization but it is up to AEMET to decide if the averages should or should not be published. Now we are not experts in climatology, but I think it is pretty reasonable to say that if AEMET, who certainly know about the station they placed, don't publish the averages that were published by WMO in their own website and don't even count that station for their 1981-2010 map, it is clear that they don't consider the station reliable enough and, furthermore, disagree completely with the averages posted by WMO.

AEMET are not "hiding" the station because they wanna make money off of it, completely different case from IPMA.

Look at Cartagena, Spain as an example. Before I introduced those averages, there was an average of a year (yes, a year), but, since I did not want do delete all of that, I switched them with WMO values (1981-2010 btw). Do you really think that the precipitation they (WMO) published is on par with what AEMET represented on their map? No, it is at least 70 mm off. That is almost a different Koppen classification.

I am not even considering UHI, because the station is official and is probably well placed (unlike that one in Barcelona). The problem here is that AEMET denies the averages shown in WMO's website. It is as simple as that. Please, I don't want any excuses saying: "the map doesn't go into detail". Personally, I think the map goes well into detail. For climatology in Spain, I trust solely on AEMET. If you don't trust AEMET then, I'm sorry to say, but the problem is yours. I am tired of always being on patrol of what is written on the climate of Spain (especially the Mediterranean coast). There are literally articles published by well known international tourism websites who say Spain has a Tropical climate on Costa del Sol... [11] (not even kidding). Same thing with that Greek guy and Lindos.

This is Wikipedia, and if the main source (AEMET) contradicts the "resource source" (WMO) then the resource source is no longer reliable. If those averages were on par with the AEMET map, I would let them be just the way they are. Let me be clear on what is different from the map (on Marbella, Puerto):

• The average lows in February and December that should be below 10C are at or above it

• Average high in August should be around 30C, not 27C...

This might seem contradictory to what I said before but I will let you keep that weather box. I'll only take out the "very mild" part because an average of 12-13C in the winter is not very mild and the "subtropical" part since that is pure promotion and there is not even a stable definition on what subtropical is. If you make any reference to that, at least put "according to Trewartha". Life4best, a conservation programe, for example, labels the Azores as temperate, Madeira as temperate to subtropical and the Canaries as temperate to subtropical. Which is fine by me as subtropical is literally "before Tropical", so putting that in southern Europe is kinda strange.

Also, don't think that because a station is located off of the city centre it is not influenced by UHI. The Air base of Alverca do Ribatejo is located way off of Lisbon, but it still has some influences of the Lisbon UHI, nightime lows are 1°C higher than they should (compare it with Alenquer). Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Average Portuguese Joe: I don't see AEMET denying nor contradicting anything WMO has posted or eitherwise. Why do you say that? Yesterday you've made the following statement: "AEMET denies any of those winter average lows" but that's completely untrue. Barely November and December don't fit in the map and by a low margin. All of the other are on point even with the AEMET map. Whilst on the other hand, several other months have warmer high averages in the same map, so according to AEMET, Marbella has an even warmer climate than the one shown in the WMO chart. February with 10.0 is actually on the 10.0 margin as only the ones +10.1 start with the new color. So we pass from "any" like you first said to "all except two months" being backed up by the AEMET map itself.

When or where did I say I don't trust AEMET exactly? I also trust on AEMET and I put it above anything else, but a large scale map doesn't include the exact averages, and if a reliable source does, it can be included as long as it's not hardly colliding with the map. But for example, AEMET has literally only 11 long-term average providing stations in Andalusia but as you can see in the Observatory network they have more than 100 in Andalusia, and it's either they are modelling the climate or either using the observatory stations as a reference to make their maps. And I'd take this last option as the correct one, as I don't see AEMET modelling climate data. You say "they don't put Motril averages because they're not good" well, that's your personal assumption. We don't know the real reason.

Just as explained before, do you see how extense the AEMET network is but just around 1/10 of the stations appear with long term averages? Then how on earth did they make for example the entire climate categorization, rainfall, temperatures, etc. for all the entireness of southern Spain if in a 400km coastal stretch going from Tarifa to Almería, there are just 3 stations providing averages, Tarifa, Málaga and Almería. On the other hand, we have 23 official AEMET observatory stations just near or by the coast in that 400km stretch, not even counting the more inland ones. For example, there is a zone in southern Spain on the official AEMET map that shows annual averages above 20ºC, the biggest town in that area being Adra. How do they put Adra with an annual average above +20ºC in their own map when they don't even have any long term station nearby? But Adra does have an official Observatory Station, it's not hard to think they took the data off the Observatory Station. Well, the WMO is also using that data as well, not that hard to assume.

About the UHI in low density areas well, take account you're talking about somewhere near Lisbon, that's an huge capital city. That Alberca do Ribatejo place is in the same bay as well. On the other hand, Marbella is a small city that's literally just surrounded by towns, or better said, by urbanised areas whose 90% are detached houses. It's not even near Málaga. I personally don't consider Marbella's stations to have anything close to an UHI as you can see by their coordinates but well I will neither completely deny that.

Then, it's a subtropical climate, I don't understand why are you deleting that again, since the climate is obviously subtropical (Csa is, and moreso in this case with such winter temperatures) and the winters are very mild for European standards. If you didn't include that in the Azores, feel free to do it, instead of deleting something that really belongs here. For example Valencia or Huelva don't have "very" mild winters, but Marbella literally does, as well as Tarifa does for example. The mildest cities in other European countries include as well either subtropical or very mild or both, just as the case of Palermo where no one deleted it and neither did I, because I agree on saying that on Palermo is subtropical. So I will reinstate that again. But it is what it is, if the WMO offers data on a town/city where AEMET doesn't, then that data can be included, since the WMO is a top tier source. There are other reliable sites offering climate data (like regional governments) and that doesn't mean they're contradicting AEMET or something. And you can do the same as long as it's a reliable source. About that website saying southern Spain has a tropical climate well, that's laugheable. But that website is not a reference for anything and it's neither included on Wikipedia. Take care of yourself. --TechnicianGB (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have deleted what I wrote before, since I did look properly at the Weather box template and your comment, can you properly explain why do you think that data should be removed from the page Cádiz when it's properly sourced by AEMET? Just trying to see your point as you might be right, can you explain exactly the difference that you found between that data and the difference that has to the one from the Weather box template? Thanks. --TechnicianGB (talk) 13:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Well, that parameter from the Weather box template is actually the sum of the highest and lowest single temps reached every month during 30 years (and then making a mean out of them) instead of putting the hottest and coldest average for each month like for example AEMET and IPMA offer? Is that what you're trying to say, right? In that case maybe we can create a new discussion topic on the weather box template to include this data as well, since it would be useful, as that yes, effectively is different from the mean maximums and minimums if we want to be exactly on point, as they would be more like the highest and lowest averages for the same amount of years as the entire weather box is, 30 years as that's the meteorological normal. --TechnicianGB (talk) 13:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@TechnicianGB: I actually thought that IPMA had mean record highs/lows on the climate tables open to the public, but it doesn't, that was actually lowest high temp and highest low temp, which also does not have a parameter. You can always ask for it to be made on Template talk:Weather box, but it's not the easiest thing (you can see that I tried to do that with the daily precipitation record and other variables, but to no avail). Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Average Portuguese Joe: No one had any problem with that data in all of the 3-4 years it has been there except for you so I'll put it back again in all of the pages you have deleted it, if you have any problem with it, try to solve it first here or even try to reach an administrator so we can have a third party opinion on this issue if you want to, but don't delete well sourced AEMET data because no one has complained except for you, that data is official AEMET data and besides not being exactly what you say it still matches the criteria of the highest/lowest averages, similar to mean maxs/lows as the weather boxes don't have such parameters, using similar ones aren't exactly forbidden as per WP:INFOBOX. I could be wrong here so if you have anything else to say please refrain yourself from deleting data and come to talk or ask for a third party opinion, because I might be wrong, but don't just delete official data that has been there for years.

Also, on a side note, in the page Portimao you are putting data that doesn't match up any source, the climate-data.org source shows different numbers than the ones you have reverted, you have reverted my changes where I put exactly what the source says, can you explain why exactly? I see there is one IPMA source as well but that didn't either match your numbers. Put something that appears on one of the sources but don't put data that's not in them. --TechnicianGB (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@TechnicianGB: First of all, I have to say this, you are acting rather childish.

• I clearly explained to you why that data doesn't fit the parameters for the Weather Box. Do you honestly think it's alright to put average record highs/lows on the US and other countries (like it should be) and all-time record high/low mean just for Spain in the same parameter? No. It should be you asking in the template talk whether or not you could use that alternatively, not me. Why is this still a debate? Really, what is your problem?

• I am not deleting data, the data is on AEMET and you can access it whenever you want (if that's your excuse). I am just removing it from Wikipedia as there is no use for it in the Weather Box. If you think I am purposely targeting Spanish Weather Boxes you can show me any other Weather box mixing the parameters of any other country and I'll delete it as well (as of today I've only found that on certain Weather boxes in the south of Spain).

• I admit the data in Portimão is modeled, or I forgot to put the source, can't remember. Nevertheless the data from IPMA, besides being 1971-2000, is also very incomplete, precipitation is so low (around 400mm) that even IPMA themselves don't include that in their official 1971-2000 map (instead they put it at around 500mm). I think it would be obvious (even to you who knows more about the climate in Spain) that Portimão does neither have an average high of 15.1C in January nor 30C in August (just look at the values from Praia da Rocha). Also March and April don't have that much rain.

• And also you put the average low in January and the annual average wrong compared to the source, so I'm hoping you'll correct that. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Average Portuguese Joe: Hello, I have seen the history of that page (Portimao) so that's why I didn't interfere in changing any sources because I saw the explanation you gave to someone else. I've just sticked up in putting what the source says. You were right about the January low, I have corrected it and as I have also manually wrote the annual average just as the page says. I didn't use the IPMA data because you gave a good explanation, I've just sticked up in writing the exact numbers from the source.

Okay, I got your point. It was frustrating for me because I spent hours compiling that data from the AEMET software tool. I've inserted that data also for other cities that aren't just southern ones and don't worry, I've never said you are "targeting" Spanish climates nor anything like that. My goal was to insert that data in all of the cities/places where AEMET has averages, but if you oppose to it, lets try to do something, because I am always comprehensive and this website is made to edit upon mutual agreement.

What if I insert that data in a separate box putting exactly in the title that these are the highest and lowest 1981-2010 averages and I use the normal high/low average parameters from the weather box template? --TechnicianGB (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

What do you think about this? It would be a separated and smaller chart from the main weather box. To put an example, it would be like the average sea temperatures charts. If IPMA offers this, put them as well. --TechnicianGB (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@TechnicianGB: As I said I would prefer if you wrote on the Template talk:Weather box, but for now let's agree on this:

Also notice the "collapsed" parameter.

Regarding Portimão, I'm expecting IPMA will soon publish the new normals (one in the airport which is much more extreme, and the other one in Praia da Rocha), but in the meantime I'll put the averages that were before, as they're more realistic. (I'll also try to find the source I used). Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Average Portuguese Joe: If I was you, I'd revert that last edit until you find a proper source backing up that data as the actual source doesn't match up. Either that or either using another source such as IPMA for temperatures, I don't know, but data that's unsourced can't stay there, maybe if it were just some phrases it would be okay, but not an entire weather box as I don't think that's accepted by Wikipedia:TOS. Also, please do something with your 2020 data on Lugar de Baixo, put it in your sandbox or something, but a 2020 climate box can't stay on the page, I got deleted even 2001-2010 official AEMET averages when there were 1981-2010 available ones (not by you, but I'm just telling you, I won't delete that data but it's not likely acceptable - anyone can delete that anytime just for this reason) I have seen there are some 2012-2019 collapsed averages in the same page that have a dead URL as a source (the source can't be reached, you can try finding a new working one) but as I said I won't delete anything, but move the 2020 data to your sandbox or something, just as an advice because 1 year of data is obviously not a proper data to be in a Wiki article as it's not even a 10-year average, what would be the minimum lapse of time accepted in any page. Take care. --TechnicianGB (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

I won't revert your latest changes as I won't either delete the 2020 box (although I could, but I won't, it's your work) but I'd really recommend you to better move that inside your Wiki sandbox. --TechnicianGB (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@TechnicianGB: Hey, I corrected most of what you asked. This is just a theory, as I don't quite remember, but I think that at the time that I posted the average temperatures in the Portimão article, citing climate-data.org, both the precipitation and the temperature concurred with what was written in the source, otherwise, why would I cite it and put different values in T and P? So I believe they since changed (maybe they updated their model?), but even so, the temperatures are worthy to keep (I changed the precipitation with values from a udometric station nearby). Weatherspark puts even higher averages [12] so it's not like I'm trying to "enhance" the temperatures, as you know.

About the other subject of the talk... that mean extremes thing. Can we agree on the weather box I wrote above? In my opinion those values shouldn't even be there in the first place. Even the 2020 Lugar de Baixo weather box I wrote has more meaning to be there than values with no parameter. And I believe I have more reason to delete them, than you to keep them. Still, as I also believe in consensus and I'm no maniac in deleting things, I propose that Weather Box, so I hope we can agree on that. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Average Portuguese Joe: I would still prefer to leave the climate boxes as they are right now, albeit these are not the mean maximums and minimums but the maximum and minimum averages, it's still similar and I see over the past 3-4 years since I've inserted them in many climates (since it's official AEMET data) no one has never complained and no one ever deleted anything. If you still insist in putting them apart, we can use an proposed example but instead of collapsing the chart, it can have a lower width.

As for the Portimao averages, all of these numbers are still different from the source. But since I'm not picky I won't delete them. I have tried finding an archived URL of the source but I didn't find it either. --TechnicianGB (talk) 19:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@TechnicianGB: Why do you insist on keeping the boxes when you know the parameter doesn't match with the data? How many active climate editors are there? Even if they exist they would've had to check the source to see if that data is referring to the right parameter, which I did. Saying "no one has complained" to something that is arguably wrong isn't an excuse (I complained btw). And I'm being very open about this, I could've easily kept the boxes with that parameter deleted until consensus on Template Talk: Weather Box was reached.

I think it would be better collapsed as it occupies too much space and it's not that relevant for a climate section. But you do you. So, can we agree on this example below with lower width instead of collapsed? I've also changed "mean temperature extremes" to "highest and lowest mean temperatures" to further avoid confusion. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 23:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

And changing subject, the book you cited at Valencia. Do you have it or you just put it there to avoid the unsourced tag? The word "Subtropical" has one generalized meaning: Close to Tropical. This can be interpreted differently by different people. So unless the word subtropical is used on most of the research papers (like on the Canaries or Madeira for example) you should always put the person or classification that is used.

I personally believe that a subtropical climate should be located at a subtropical latitude (below 34/35°N) or have a mean of at least 14.5/15°C in its coldest month and 22°C in its hottest month. But that really doesn't matter as I'm no researcher.

The same applies to "Tropical climate". Koppen's classification does not put the Canaries at the Tropical category. Even though some locations do get values above 18ºC, they are deserts or semi-deserts precipitation-wise, thus qualified as hot desert climates. Look at Dubai for example. I'm also pretty sure most papers will say that the Canaries have a subtropical desert climate. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 23:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Average Portuguese Joe: let's split this in 2 parts.

• I literally said no one except for you, so I have included you there and that's exactly why we are having this conversation. The data matches, what doesn't match is the parameter. Just for the sake of this I agree with your last proposed example so be free to edit all of the pages including that parameter with the smaller separate box. It's like many pages that have another box for sea temperatures, after all, it's useful weather/climate data and it's official data as well. So all good, let's say this has been solved.

• Mediterranean Climates are Subtropical per se yet somewhere with all winter months with average means above 12ºC and yearly means above 18ºC are clearly subtropical, just like Palermo or Crete are as well. I know there isn't any standard for putting this, but what I said is a good example, because for example these mentioned temperatures are an indicator to grow very sensitive flora that can't grow somewhere with slightly lower temperatures, just like Valencia is barely 1ºC warmer than Castellón de la Plana but that's enough for it to grow many additional sensitive plants and flowers. It's subtropical by both Köppen and Trewartha climate classifications, isn't it? Of course not all Csa and much less Csb are subtropical climates, but +12ºC in all months and +18ºC annual mean really are.

I don't know why you become picky sometimes. As you can see, I am not picky with your edits regarding Portuguese cities, nor with your edits in general. I'd like to receive the same payback. I know the coastal parts of the Canary Islands are too dry for any Köppen A climate but they are tropical per se if we look just at their official 1981-2010 temperature averages. For example, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, albeit having a BSh climate, is considered tropical under Köppen because the coldest month has a mean above 18ºC and your example of Dubai fails in January as I can see. Also put special emphasis on the lowest extremes as well. Or just think this: With the official AEMET averages, they have tropical A climates if the rainfall was much bigger than it actually is. That's why I wrote "by Köppen standards is tropical because all months are above 18ºC" yet it still clearly says that the climates are BSh or BWh because they're too dry, can't deny that. But we can't neither deny the fact that with proper irrigation, basically any kind of ultra tropical flora can grow in most of the coastal parts of the Canary Islands. The temperature averages make it tropical as well as the extreme lows. It's just not because of the rainfall. But it is by their official averages. Am I wrong? Regards. --TechnicianGB (talk) 00:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

The example of Dubai wasn't good because it fails in January but also because it's way too extreme during the summer, that's obviously an extreme desertic climate. But look what I found, Saint Helena, albeit being much closer to the tropics, their coastal climate is virtually identical to the southern parts of the Canary Islands. It says the climate is "tropical, marine and mild" albeit being all BWh hot desert. Take a look at Jamestown where the climate is basically the same as in Tenerife South with slightly warmer winters and slightly cooler summers. It says that the climate is a tropical hot desert BWh climate. Because heck, it really is. As long as a place is tropical temp-wise is not incorrect to say it's tropical by Köppen standards. --TechnicianGB (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@TechnicianGB: Dubai has a January mean well above 18C, you can see it here, the other Weather Box I initially cited in the main climate article is so vandalized that is almost impossible to see the original. Sources are blocked but WMO averages from an earlier period agree on an average above 18C [13]

Lets take your example on Saint Helena. First and foremost, this island is located in the Tropics so it would naturally have a wet Tropical climate if it weren't for the cool Benguela Current. The sources cited on Wikipedia include cia.gov which says "tropical marine; mild, tempered by trade winds"; [14] and the St Helena News Media Services which says "Despite the island's locality within the tropics, its climate is kept mild and equable by the south-cast trade winds" [15]. Aditionally I have found 3 other notable sources: The Economist describes it has "mild" [16]; Maunder et al. says "The island has a remarkably stable sub-tropical climate; this is due to the influence of the South East Trade Wind belt and the Benguela Current" [17]; the Guardian says "St Helena has a very mild, oceanic climate" [18]. So, as you see, all in all, the climate of Saint Helena, despite being located on the Tropics is mostly described as mild, oceanic and subtropical which further strengthens my point, and I didn't cherry pick sources, these were all I could find from actual research papers and notable news sources. Even Bermuda which has a transitioning Tropical climate is described by the first source I've found as subtropical [19]

And no, the climate of Santa Cruz de Tenerife will never fall on Tropical in the Koppen classification, only if it had more precipitation. Having an average above 18C does not make the climate automatically Tropical. I get what you're trying to say with temperature, and this is very subjective. We all know that climate classifications are controversial, and there is not one single classification that is correct by all means. But what matters the most to Wikipedia is what most of the scientific community agrees on. So you either have two choices: Or you cite a climate based on a classification, or, just like I did with Saint Helena, describe it with reliable sources, more sources the better.

Do you have any source, as notable as those I've used, that says that the Canaries have a tropical climate? Or mainland Spain has a subtropical climate? I'm not saying you shouldn't use the word "subtropical". I'm only saying that if you don't have the sources, you should cite the classification. E.g. "ABC has a subtropical climate according to x". Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 02:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Average Portuguese Joe: I don't get what's exactly your fixation with this topic when it has nothing to do with the main thing (that highest and lowest means) now you are being again extremely picky again. Can I ask why do you care so much about on-point perfection with Mediterranean climates outside from Portugal? You have inserted as well phrases on southern Portuguese climates that have no sources but I didn't delete nor add any ^{[citation needed]} tag because I don't care at all and it's common sense.

With a 10 second Google Search I found the official website of the Junta de Andalucía mentioning that the southern coast of Andalucía has a Mediterranean Subtropical Climate. Just as expected, just as we both know and just as common sense dictaminates. Now lets use common sense again, and common sense says to us that Köppen tropical climate categorizations start with places that have their coldest month with an average temperature above 18ºC and that criteria is found in many coastal parts of the Canary Islands, such as Santa Cruz de Tenerife. Why do you have a problem with this, exactly? You're giving me the point there as temp-wise they're tropical just as you recognised, albeit they don't have a Koppen tropical categorization because they're too dry, but they are temp-wise and this is a substantiated fact. Why do you want or need a source saying what's already said in the Köppen climate classification page under the tropical criteria. Dubai is as well a completely different climate and an extreme desert, not comparable at all.

I can find many more sources, but here it goes from an official Spanish regional government source (Junta de Andalucía's environment agency) specifically mentioning the Mediterranean Subtropical Climate in Mainland Spain. Are you happy now? https://www.juntadeandalucia.es/medioambiente/portal/landing-page-%C3%ADndice/-/asset_publisher/zX2ouZa4r1Rf/content/regiones-clim-c3-a1ticas-de-andaluc-c3-ada/20151 --TechnicianGB (talk) 03:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

And also, I have already said I agree with your last example. Although I would prefer to use the average high and low parameters, but it's ok if you use the extreme ones. --TechnicianGB (talk) 03:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Average Portuguese Joe: Just to end this nonsense and since you have asked for them, here you go with 2 additional sources, one in addition to the previous one which you required about mainland Spain and another one about the Canary Islands.

- https://titulaciongeografia-sevilla.es/contenidos/profesores/publicaciones/archivos/ClimaANDALUCIA.pdf a work from the University of Sevilla, this is something graduates have to learn, it's made by the Head of the Department of Physical Geography and Regional Geographic Analysis from the University of Sevilla. You can check it here: https://investigacion.us.es/sisius/sis_showpub.php?idpers=2246 As you can see the subtropical climate is perfectly explained where is found in Andalusia. Now you have 2 sources.

- https://www.profesorfrancisco.es/2009/11/el-clima-en-espana.html this is the site where a Geography professor posts his own work, his website is quite famous for educational purposes and he has a Geography doctorate by the University of Alicante. As you can see the source says "Islas Canarias - Clima Tropical Seco / Subtropical" and you also have a lot of useful information in this source if you want to inform yourself more about the climates found in Spain, not only in mainland Spain but in the islands as well.

- http://librodigital.oupe.es/oxed/alumno/ciencias-sociales-1-eso-andalucia-proyecto-adarve/ebook/6-5-2-el-clima-y-los-medios-naturales.html Bonus track here, an Oxford University Press Geography Book that says the subtropical climates found in the Mediterranean coast of Spain have winter means between 12-15ºC so this perfectly applies to Valencia and to the "personal threshold" which I said above, the coldest month above 12ºC and the annual mean above 18ºC are prime examples of subtropical climates even if Csa is subtropical in nature. That's why for example Palermo or Crete are as well subtropical, just as I have said earlier. Subtropical climates are found in some places in southern coastal Europe, like in Spain, Italy and Greece. Also in Malta and Cyprus.

I hope that this completely unrelated thing is solved for you now and you won't do this again in the future, as you will find this in your personal talk page. Take care and good night. --TechnicianGB (talk) 03:58, 4 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@TechnicianGB: First of all, fixation? You mean actually caring for what is written on Wikipedia and avoiding any subject that is based on a personal opinion?

Do you know why I'm that "fixated" on climate articles in Spain? Because most opinion based claims come from there. Apart from the climate section of the article "Sicily" (which said that winters are warm and I simply corrected it) I have not seen anything that's as controversial, as what's written in the eastern and southern coasts of Spain. And when I do try to balance things out, I get resistance from you, saying I'm too fixated. No, you are fixated. There is not one single source in the world that says Barcelona has a high of 14.8C in January, apart from the one you chose, not even AEMET. Still, to make your own personal point, you keep that Weather Box and the climate description. I literally showed you a Weather Box of an AEMET station in Barcelona a few months ago with a January high of 12.7C (lower than the airport as expected, which doesn't even surpass 14C), but you seem to ignore it. And note that I'm not resisting like you are. I'm not the one reverting edits here.

Dude you have as much right to edit articles relating to Portugal as me, and vice-versa. Am I blocking you from doing so? Have you ever seen me edit a climate article in Portugal with the word "subtropical"? (apart from the actual koppen classification of humid subtropical). Please tell me so I can correct it.

Lets look at the sources you cited. First of all, the last source is based single-handedly on the first source. The second source actually talks about the Domain of subtropical climates, aka the Subtropics. That professor puts the Subtropics at 38°N latitude, which goes against most of what the scientific community agrees on (mostly to about 33-35°N from what I've researched), though I'm not blaming the source. The third source clearly does not consider any part of mainland Spain subtropical, and puts the Canaries as subtropical (yes there's a statement where he says "tropical seco (subtropical)" (notice the parenthesis, it reafirms subtropical) but if you actually scroll down he actually states that the Canaries "Presentan un clima subtropical de temperaturas cálidas todo el año –ningún mes baja de 17ºC- (por la influencia de los vientos alisios, del anticiclón de las Azores al Norte, y de la corriente marina fría de Canarias)".

Aditionally the maps used in that source are made by INTEF's José Alberto Bermúdez, and say the same thing. Mainland Spain: Mediterranean, oceanic, etc...; Canaries: Subtropical.

I also did a quick search a found these sources: This paper by four spanish researchers which does not even talk about a subtropical climate in mainland Spain [20], This reasearch paper says: "the objective of the present work is to compare olive flowering phenology in three locations of Andalucía, Southern Iberian Peninsula, having typical Mediterranean climate, with other three locations in Tenerife having Sub-Tropical climatic conditions" [21]. This one says "La zona Atlántica de Andalucía está mui abierta a la influencia del aire subtropical del área Madeira-Canarias" [22]. This one says "el clima en el entorno de la Cueva de Nerja corresponde a un clima templado húmedo con veranos secos y calurosos, tambren denominado clima mediterráneo."

So, I don't get your point. Are you against actually citing sources? What is your problem? Let me tell you your problem: You are biased, and only edit so people can see you point of view in things, not the general consensus in the scientific community. You are acting as such any article you edit is your personal blog, not citing any sources and making vain claims based on what you belive in. And you know dam well the principles of Wikipedia. Don't you?

You said "Subtropical climates are found in some places in southern coastal Europe, like in Spain, Italy and Greece. Also in Malta and Cyprus.". Where did you read that? On an actual source as valid as the one's I cited? Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 15:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Average Portuguese Joe: Every 2-3 months you have these outbreaks just as I said various times months earlier and I still don't get why exactly. This is the last time I will repeat something I've said dozens of times. I always insert sources but you always try to find another sources that contradict them. It's funny because I find reliable sources just because you ask for them and you spend quite a bit of time to find other sources that contradict them. Then why do you ask for sources if you literally don't even care? Where did I read that you ask? Exactly in the Junta de Andalucía source inserted above^[4] where it clearly says that the southern coast of Andalusia has a subtropical mediterranean climate. As well as the other sources say the same but you are just in constant denial.

You have asked for a reliable and scientific source saying that about the "subtropical climate" in Mainland Spain and you got it, straight from the Head of the Department of Physical Geography and Regional Geographic Analysis from the University of Sevilla. and it's how it is like it or not. Now you've literally searched for another source to try to make a point to contradict that. And your source doesn't even contradict it, they're just using other names like coastal climate, something that doesn't even exist in any climate categorization. For God's sake not again with Barcelona, where you want to impose your own POV putting a station that's located in another city in the middle of an airport with completely different geographic and orographic locations. Barcelona itself is well protected by the mountains of Collserola and it has an extreme UHI because it's one of the most densely populated cities in Europe. I have included the airport station even being in a completely different location just because you wanted it and you start with this again and again, it seems you can't simply handle the fact that Barcelona is much warmer than you would like, the city is much warmer because of the geographical and orographic conditions as well as the UHI present in there, and there are reliable sources that confirm all of this data.

Also the source is an official Generalitat de Catalunya station and not a random PWS and let me remind you of your actions in other pages as well where I had even included reliable sources or works and you even said they're not reliable just because you don't like them. Look, it's not my fault if you get angry or something because there are warmer climates than the ones found in Portugal. Or at least it's what it seems to be, because dude, I present you the sources you ask for and you always try to deny or contradict them. I even remember when you deleted the official WMO source in Benidorm just because it was too warm than you would like it to be, even being data from the official World Meteorological Organization website! You don't even know about the extreme microclimates found in many coastal parts of Spain that are also mentioned in almost every reliable work, even AEMET is constantly talking about this in their reports. For example, the outskirts of Benidorm can be 2-3ºC colder in a normal winter night compared to the city itself.

Wikipedia requires a NPOV which you sometimes fail to have. If you ask for a source I put it, and it's not a random blogspot nor anything like that, then why exactly are you always trying to contradict everything? You should know that not all works or publications say the same. If I use the worldwide map of the Köppen climate classification, according to them places with +1.000mm of annual rainfall in the Valencian Community are BSk yet for AEMET they're more than obvious Csa and reliable works talk about how humid can be some of these climates, yet the Köppen map says they are BSk even if they weren't BSk not even 500 years ago. There are always sources that contradict eachother. So your point is finding another source that contradicts every reliable source I put?

Funny enough you are never picky about Portuguese climates, imagine if anywhere in Spain had unsourced averages like the ones we can find right now in Portimao. You would instantly delete them. And I would agree, because unsourced data can't stay in Wikipedia. But even after you inserted again the unsourced data in Portimao, I said I'll leave it as you wrote because you say that "the source had that data the last year" and I said ok, I won't delete it, even if it's not sourced. But seriously dude I'm tired of these double standards you have when it comes to editing Portugal to everywhere else, because you're clearly biased to Portugal (your own nickname even says it) but as you can see I have not blamed you for this. Since you had the freedom to make personal assumptions against me, let's say mine about you as well. You are way too lenient when you edit about Portugal but then you become picky about everywhere else on the Mediterranean, especially when it comes to Spain. And well, I simply don't get why you get picky over a single word or phrase, "actually caring for what's written in Wikipedia" dude you can literally start to edit thousands of unsourced things then, not something that is properly sourced just because you don't like the content inside the source, like it happens with Barcelona or whatever. Full stop, since I've shown you the sources you have required, this is over. Trying to contradict them with another ones that talk about different things is not any kind of point, just some kind of tantrum to say your sources are more valid than mines. I won't spend more time in such a senseless discussion because I've shown you already the reliable sources you asked for, but whatever. Now if you want, edit your proposed example, which was the main goal of this. --TechnicianGB (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@TechnicianGB: Again and again you did not answer my question. I'll make it simple this time: Where did you see this: "Subtropical climates are found in some places in southern coastal Europe, like in Spain, Italy and Greece. Also in Malta and Cyprus", cite it please. Or just admit you saw that but don't know where, as that's the difference between being or not being on Wikipedia.

Oh I see you cited a source. Seriously now dude, do you really think it works like that? Ok, let's try it then. I found this notable website of a professor which claims the Earth is flat, of course the majority of the scientific community will say it's round. But that doesn't matter, it's sourced, right? It's not wrong in any way right?

The funny thing is I'm not even attacking you, I'm only recommending you to use more sources and you're mad because I go against your point?

As you found sources for mainland Spain being subtropical, I can find that same amount of sources for mainland Portugal or even central France being subtropical. Do I use them? Of course I use them, but if I find a bunch more sources that outnumber the first source, describing the climate as "temperate", I use common sense and don't put a source that is contradicted by the majority.

>95% of the sources describe the Canaries as Subtropical. Why do you put them Tropical? You're using your own beliefs to deny the majority. And this is not even arguable btw. Koppen and the overwhelming majority of sources do not put the canaries at tropical. So I'll have to edit that with proper sources, since you decide to stand your ground. And if you have more sources than me feel free to put them, as I actually believe in democracy.

Lets do a challenge. You try to find every possible reliable source that says mainland Spain is subtropical (at least in some places) and I try to find sources that contradict it or don't even mention it (and yes, not mentioning something can be a synonym of contradicting it). If my sources account for more than 90% of the total sources I win. Who do you think is going to win?

Look at this well written article "Climate of Argentina". Go to the Regional climate section. The northern parts of Argentina are described as subtropical, for obvious reasons, the climate is actually near tropical; the central regions however are described as temperate and guess what, they are at least as warm as Valencia in every month. Now you might say that article is BS because it doesn't agree with your point of view, I get it, but that's the reality of information.

I think we had long agreed on the last proposed example, so I don't know why you bring that up.

You keep saying that I don't do the same for Portugal. Please tell me where that is and I'll correct it. Is it the mean temperatures in Portimão? Well the source was actually valid then, but do you want me to change it? I'll change if you want, just ask for it. I personally see no problem in a source that was valid being there but if you do see a problem let me know and I'll correct it, once again. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Average Portuguese Joe: When or where did I say that? Where does it even say that the Canary Islands are tropical? Of course they're subtropical, but that doesn't remove the fact that many of the coastal parts are tropical by Köppen (temp-wise) since the coldest month has a mean above 18ºC yet they are hot desertic or hot semiarid climates. Why is it so hard for you to admit a factual source when you've even literally said yesterday "if Tenerife had more rain it would be tropical" no one says the Canaries are tropical, just that the warmest parts have a mean in their coldest month above 18ºC thus making them tropical temperature-wise. Isn't this actually true? Isn't it by Köppen thresholds? You even admitted this. I never wrote nor said the Canaries are tropical.

Did you know that Csa Mediterranean climates are Subtropical, right? Yeah sure a very proper comparison to compare that flat earth conspiracy with an official Governmental source, an University source or an Oxford publications book (I have shown you all of these 3 sources that say that subtropical thing and the worst part of all is that you know it as well but you're in constant denial like if these were blogspot sources) sure dude Málaga, Palermo or Malta are temperate, just as Chicago is, since a humid continental climate is also temperate, am I wrong? Did you see that your source said something about "coastal climates" which is a categorization that doesn't even exist. I don't know why you don't simply admit you don't have any point and you even start to make absurd comparisons.

Since it seems you think this is some kind of competition and looking at your first paragraph, yes please, show me sources that say Portugal or even better France are subtropical. But it has to be an official government source (at least a regional one) as well as an university source and a source from a book that's published to teach geography to students. Since these are the 3 sources I have shown you. Blogs or dubious websites don't count, so at least find 3 equally (if not better) sources saying Portugal and France are subtropical. Funny enough you keep on saying that like if I wrote that everywhere with a Csa climate is a subtropical climate, nope I didn't because I have told you already that since there are no "official thresholds" that goes to us Wikipedia editors. But I really say again that somewhere with a coldest mean of +12ºC and an average annual mean +18ºC is subtropical. It seems it really bothers you because nowhere in Portugal match this criteria but places in Spain, Italy, Malta or Greece do match this criteria. In that case, let's say +12ºC in their coldest month and +17ºC annual average so Faro and Sagres can be counted as subtropical as well. Does that make any difference for you? Did you know why I'm using the 18ºC annual mean? Because +18ºC is warm for Trewartha's classification.

Anyways, you can agree or disagree with that. But now let's focus on the other thing since you have asked me to show you reliable sources that say mainland Spain has subtropical climates. Fair enough. Andalusia is mainland Spain, right? Let's check it out then:

• Junta de Andalucía official source backing up what I wrote: https://www.juntadeandalucia.es/medioambiente/portal/landing-page-%C3%ADndice/-/asset_publisher/zX2ouZa4r1Rf/content/regiones-clim-c3-a1ticas-de-andaluc-c3-ada/20151
• University of Sevilla official publication backing up what I wrote: https://titulaciongeografia-sevilla.es/contenidos/profesores/publicaciones/archivos/ClimaANDALUCIA.pdf
• Oxford University Press official book backing up what I wrote: http://librodigital.oupe.es/oxed/alumno/ciencias-sociales-1-eso-andalucia-proyecto-adarve/ebook/6-5-2-el-clima-y-los-medios-naturales.html

I cand find more, but it's even necessary? Of course the majority of the sources will just stick to say the climate is Mediterranean. Or just "typical Mediterranean" like if all of the Mediterranean was the same. But these sources are just doing a broad categorization while for example, the sources I've just posted do a specifical on point categorization and they do separate and specifical sub-categorizations. Sorry, but I can't say Madrid and Málaga have the same climate. Or Montpellier and Palermo. Or Thessaloniki and Heraklion.

This is the official map from the Junta de Andalucía Environment Agency and even Wikipedia Commons has a specific climate map for Andalusia. --TechnicianGB (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@TechnicianGB: Please, read carefully what I wrote down below so we can get this over with.

Yes, I did say that the only thing that keeps the Canaries from not being classified as Tropical in the Koppen classification is precipitation, and I'm still right. You cannot say something is Tropical temperature-wise. Tropical is a classification that has two requirements according to Koppen, if one fails, it's not Tropical it's something else. Bergen doesn't have an Equatorial climate precipitation-wise, it has an extremely wet oceanic climate. Curaçao does not have a Tropical climate, it has a hot semi-arid climate (which sits in the Tropics). In the case of the Canaries, a Hot desert climate. And also the temperature variation in the Canaries is clearly subtropical, not Tropical (its location in the subtropics should be obvious). So the best climate description for the Canaries (at least at low altitude) is subtropical hot-desert, which also agrees with most sources.

If you're still asking to yourself: "Well, then how are we going to explain that, despite having the same classification, climate x is warmer than y?". Yes, just like the climate in the Canaries is much cooler than Curaçao despite having the same koppen definition. That is easily answered by explaining on detail the climate in a thing called climate section, where people can read about the actual climate with other definitions beside Koppen or instead, they can look at the temperature/precipitation description and see for themselves the actual climate of the region. People are not dumb you know.

Now, about the subtropical question in Spain. We both know that the great majority of sources will say those parts of Spain have a temperate climate, as opposed to subtropical (and you shoud know that the subtropical question is much more than just looking at the lowest or highest monthly mean). But, since you have at least a reasonable source (not really research paper level but still reasonable), I can agree with the source only if you write it like this:

"Spanish City X has a Mediterranean climate (Koppen: Csa), subtropical according to the Regional Government of Andalusia."

I've seen this being used more than once. For example, in Auckland, New Zealand.

You see, my problem is not really the claims themselves. My problem is you writting these claims out loud without a source to back them and being extremely picky of people that warn you about it. Look at all the excuses you wrote above just so you can gaing some form of credibility. What does a Wiki commons map (that was taken literally out of the only source you have) do to give you credibility? I can literally make a map of Portugal with a full on Tropical climate and put it on Wiki Commons. After discussing the Weather Box thing, I literally only asked you for a source and look at what you wrote!

Can we agree on what I wrote above? I think it's more encyclopedic this way and yes, the order should be used that way for obvious reasons explained above.

I've found at least 6 credible sources where they describe mainland Portugal (or parts of it) as subtropical in a few minutes and I really wanted to comment on the last lines of the 3rd paragraph you wrote (well that doesn't even deserve a comment), but I don't want this conversation to drag any further as I currently don't have much time. If you still want the sources ask me and I'll put them in your talk page.

And please, don't write an essay next time. Make it clear and objective. If you agree simply say I agree, and if you don't, write a simple, short text explaining why. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

PS: And no, Chicago isn't temperate, continental climates are not Temperate according to Koppen. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Average Portuguese Joe: Of course most sources will stick to say it's just Mediterranean because that's the broad categorization and they aren't doing subcategorizations. But like I said before, there are Csa and Csa climates, just look at Madeira, is Csa, yet Thessaloniki is Csa as well. They're obviously very different climate-wise as Madeira is very warm and subtropical while Thessaloniki has cold winters, but they're "Mediterranean" since Köppen doesn't offer subcategorizations. But if official or sub-official governmental or official sources from another countries do them (like Spain does in this case, and probably other countries do it as well) these sources are welcome. Anyways, I don't want to extend more this topic because it's already solved as everything is properly sourced now.

Since you've asked for sources, I have inserted several of them. Now all of these pages have a proper and reliable source, I have inserted the official Junta de Andalucía source so this "issue" is solved already. The commons map is based on one of the sources, indeed, but I don't know why you keep saying "the only one" when there are various sources that back up everything I have said, official governmental and encyclopedic books as well. The Wiki Commons map is not any "excuse" but just to show you that there are climate subcategorizations, Köppen has a very broad categorization, and you know it as well, as it's too broad and it also has some leaks. There is even a Mediterranean climate subcategorization called "Continental Mediterranean Climate" with even a separate Wiki article, this subcategorization is also found in all of my sources as well. I will create more subcategorizations based on official sources when I'll have more time, since it's encyclopedic and properly sourced content that is missing from Wikipedia.

But since now it's properly sourced with an official source, lets close that case. I wrote that long text because I wanted to share some additional acknowledge with you as well as I have presented you some sources where you can read that as well as additional climate related stuff, since I'm not inventing anything. Additionally, I take profit of this conversation to tell you another thing as well, since I have seen that you have deleted some stuff in the Laurel forest and Cloud forest pages, I recommend you to do some quick Google research before deleting things that aren't properly sourced, in some cases like this one you will easily find a reliable source (I know it's not always like this) I'm just writing this as a friendly advice. Just fyi, Los Alcornocales Natural Park has the last cloud forest in mainland Europe in a small area called Los Llanos del Juncal, as a remnant of the last big glaciation that Europe suffered much, much back in the history. With a quick Google search you can find it, and again, I'd strongly encourage you to check and research stuff before just deleting it. For example, https://www.reachextra.com/el-bosque-de-la-niebla-misty-forest-cadiz-who-is-protecting-it/ in this site you have some info where it quickly explains that Los Llanos del Juncal cloud forest is documented to have 1.8 million years. But I won't use this website as a source but more encyclopedical sources as this topic is properly researched and sourced. This is a very curious thing and in Europe it's only found in the Peninsula we both share! --TechnicianGB (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

The article Tarphius serranoi has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable species.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Neocon1 (talk) 23:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Neocon1: What do you mean with non notable? Its a species with Critically Endangered status by IUCN. There are 540 results on a google search for this species. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 23:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

User:Average Portugese Joe, I just removed the prod for you. --Neocon1 (talk) 23:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, in this edit you added some material that separated the previous sentences, T. baccata is native to all countries of Europe, the Caucasus, and beyond from Turkey eastwards to northern Iran. Its range extends south to Morocco and Algeria in North Africa. from their citation footnote.^[1] I've inserted a footnote to restore text-source integrity. Maybe I'm just being a stickler, and I don't mean to insult, but please try to be careful about this kind of thing. As someone who occasionally attempts to verify existing citations, this kind of disjunction between cited text and footnote can create great annoyance and confusion. Thanks in advance.

– Anon423 (talk) 02:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Anon423: Yeah sorry about that. Had my edit been ignored, that last sentence would've looked like it had no citation. I'll be more careful next time. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 02:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I hope I didn't seem too rude. I do appreciate your work. Happy editing! – Anon423 (talk) 05:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Since it's not worthy to create a war over a grain of sand and the source is a word from a book, I'll just leave it as it's written in the Climate of Valencia page.

I have just added the phrase using the Siegmund climate classification as well, but predominating the Köppen one, obviously. It's not worthy to discuss over such a small thing. Have a good night! --TechnicianGB (talk) 01:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Do you think this is the proper way to do an edit summary?

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tenerife&diff=prev&oldid=1069745899

I am tired of your constant personal attacks and personal assumptions based on your own POV. If you break the WP:NPA policy once again, you'll be reported. This is not the first time, but this will be the last time.

Now leaving this on a side note, what's exactly our problem with official AEMET stations of Tenerife / The Canary Islands having all winter months above 18ºC and that being written on the Wiki pages? Temperature-wise they're considered Tropical as by Köppen climate classification as you perfectly know. Is it some kind of jealousy because no Portuguese island reach such temperatures or something like that? Because I'm tired to search for sources, to do specifical footnotes and then you come out of nowhere to edit what doesn't fit your preferences. Wikipedia is not a personal blog. Have you seen everyone else deleting my edits rather than yourself? You seem to get very emotional with some data just because your personal point of view doesn't agree with it. Even if it's official data.

Do you have any problem with me? Let's use the talk page. Not enough? Let's go to talk with an Administrator. But please, stop the personal attacks based on your assumptions. We are civilized. --TechnicianGB (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@TechnicianGB: Well, I've been trying really hard to keep Wikipedia as consistent and unbiased as I could. Certain users who used the website to make way for their nationalistic or political views got immediate resistance from my part, most of them are now blocked fortunately. I've been keeping up with your edits for a long time now and I've gotta' be honest: You are biased. Still, despite this, there are some of these users who know when they've gone too far and will recognize what they're doing. In your case, you cannot be reverted, you simply can't take that. And so what did I do? I wasted my time trying to let you know my point of view (just look at my talk!). Still, after this, your edits remain unchanged.

Dude this is a talk between two people, you don't need to lie or put on a show. The problem in question is the fact that you are calling a climate by the wrong Koppen definition despite knowing it does not apply. Why are you saying I have a problem with AEMET sources? That has nothing to do with the problem (and is kinda random tbh). Literally the only person who as a problem with that is you. You are the one avoiding using AEMET sources in the climate of Barcelona, not me. I fully support AEMET, you don't (because you're biased). Forget common sense, you can't even see past a literal definition dude.

I would like to keep this as friendly as I could, but you are not only unwilling to discuss in a proper, concise way but you also like to make immature statements like "Are you jealous?" to try to somehow strengthen you argument to everything. Have you ever though on what is the reason to why you're being reverted instead of making comments like these and do little lies in between?

Anyway, this last comment of yours was the last I could take for all the BS written on Wikipedia I closed my eyes to. So in conclusion: [1] I will no longer support you in other edit wars you have with other users. [2] I will stop debating with you since it's pointless. [3] I will start to do what I had to do in the first place which is to ask other users for their opinion, not you (in accordance to point [2]). [4] I will also ask you to please not respond to this message (as per point [3]), might delete it if you're persistent in doing so. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Average Portuguese Joe: Did you even read the note and what it says? Where did I say it's tropical rather than just temperature-wise which is a reality you try to hide? Aren't all winter months above 18ºC on average?? Of course I have asked if that's a sentimental answer from your part, because you have actually made a personal attack against me in your Edit Summary!!! I spend my time seeking for sources and you come to delete everything that you don't know or if it directly collides with your point of view.

@TechnicianGB: Apparently stating "I hope this does not become disruptive" is a personal attack. And you still responded to this when I clearly asked you not to... good luck with that.

@Average Portuguese Joe: Why are you playing now? You have broken WP:NPA with your well known personal assumptions, you have exactly said in that Edit Summary: "again with your obsession" and then you have literally double personally attacked me here in your talk page after I wrote the first message. And you seriously don't expect any reply? Now I need to say sorry for defending myself against false fallacies? I'll leave it here. I see it's pointless to try to debate with you. --TechnicianGB (talk) 10:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

About the laurel forest thing, as the source implies, it's a small place where that happens, if you see inside the entire article, there are other places in the world far away from the tropics that are also mentioned there having only mixed laurel forests, Los Alcornocales has Los Llanos del Juncal which is a small laurel forest and another area with mixed laurel forest (the cloud forest exists as you can see, here you have an additional official Junta de Andalucía source in English that explains why the cloud forest also exists, mentioning the laurel forest: https://www.juntadeandalucia.es/medioambiente/portal/documents/20151/5108d0a2-46b0-f7c3-465a-f4288b017231) thing is that, even your sources say there are laurel species there, thus making it a mixed laurel forest, I am not a botanical like you to know where to find extensively scientific sources, yet I've found these other sources that are completely reliable. I don't think it should be just deleted from there since in Los Alcornocales there are clearly laurisilva species.

Maybe not forming a forest (albeit the sources say it does)? but forming a mixed laurel forest at least in that specifical place. Everything I've said above it's what is backed up by sources, we even have that scientifical research that was mentioning the existence of laurel plants and funghi that exist in that area, which I've deleted because it doesn't specifically mention it forms a laurel forest (as required by yourself few months ago) but this one does. Let's resolve this as it's WP:DR because it's not something unreferenced or eitherwise also delete all of the other places that are mentioned on that page without any kind of source. As you know Junta de Andalucía is an official federal governmental source, it's not a blog written by amateur members nor anything like that.

I've also made a new article called Laurisilva of Madeira thus moving that from the page laurel forest as the Laurisilva of Madeira deserves a separate page (being an UNESCO World Heritage Site) and it's actually found over many Wikipedias, I found really strange to not to find a separate article on the English Wikipedia. If you want, you can expand that article as right now is quite short and you have extended information about this topic. --TechnicianGB (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@TechnicianGB: I understand that you're not really knowledgeable on this topic, but you should have that knowledge before trying to debate and revert someone on Wikipedia who clearly knows more than you do about the topic.

Now read carefully what I wrote, word by word. I'm giving you hours of reading in a small text

It is obvious that it does not form a laurel forest. First you should read what I wrote in that paragraph of the article. Europe has one species in the family Lauraceae (Laurus nobilis). The Azores also have only one species in that family (Laurus azorica). So why do the Azores have laurel forests and Europe doesn't? Well, because a large part of its flora is subtropical and laurel-leaved in nature (though the Azores are temperate). Look at Vaccinium cylindraceum or Frangula azorica, their temperate/cool climate relatives are all deciduous, yet they evolved into different species which are semi-deciduous/perennial. You could also say they retained those characteristics from m.y.a. when Europe (and the Tethys Sea) had a humid and warm climate. Smilax azorica and Hedera azorica have much broader leaves than their mainland relatives to improve water evaporation. Picconia (which is a member of the olive family even though it's leaves are laurel-like) doesn't even exist in Europe (though it existed before the ice ages).

And so the term "laurel forest" is essentially the species that together fill the ecological niche of a laurel forest (continuous rain, mild temperatures) and have genetically evolved to do so. Locations in the Mediterranean can't simply have a laurel forest because the flora present there is not adapted to mild and humid tropical/subtropical environments anymore, instead, it has adapted to more extreme and drier climates, the ones that couldn't adapt went extinct. Others, such as Prunus lusitanica (which is not found in Los Alcornocales) survived and changed little since then, as it substituted the humidity of the warmer climate of millions of years ago with running water from watercourses. Yet, even in the few humid Iberian spots where it survived it is still very far from a laurel forest, as the cooler riparian European flora or water–affiliated Mediterranean plants (like the cork oak) colonized and make the great majority of species in that area. The thing with Los Llanos del Juncal (and Los Alcornocales) is that it is a very well preserved Mediterranean forest with some species that are rare elsewhere in Spain (the majority are ferns). The Los Alcornocales Nature Park is the only place in Spain where Rhododendron ponticum occurs (which is supposedly an archaic species of Europe when the climate was warmer and rainier), so I get why they're sensationalizing it. Even in Portugal where the forests are usually much more humid, that species only occurs in two mountain ranges: Serra do Caramulo and Serra de Monchique. You can find many articles which talk about these "Tertiary relics" (Like this one: [23]), but to go as far as to say "these are laurel forests" is purely sensational and utterly stupid, or they're just mixing information which can easily be misunderstood.

I gave you the explanation you needed, and I'm not here to further waste my time, so you either delete that or I'll talk to an admin about it. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Average Portuguese Joe: Hello, well lets split this in 2 separate things. It's a clear cloud forest as you can see in several A-grade sources, maybe not a full laurel forest but a mixed laurel forest (albeit there are very reliable sources saying it's a laurel forest just in that small area, and of course cloud forest doesn't equal to laurel forest, I'm writing this just to solve your other issue regarding the existence of a cloud forest there) as you even know there are laurel species there, and species that are common in laurel forests. If you look at that article, there are lots of places in the world mentioned that are far from the tropics that get significantly cooler during winters (like the part of mainland South Korea which forms a mixed laurel forest, not a full laurel forest) this applies for other places of the world that are listed there as well. As for Los Alcornocales it's just in Los Llanos del Juncal (a small and special part where that microclimate exists, as you know already) you can see it's only mentioned inside the text, not listed as a place where laurel forests exist like other places from the world which actually don't form laurel forests but mixed laurel forests. Based on the sources, I firmly think Los Alcornocales is one of them, having a mixed laurel forest, obviously not the same category as the one in Madeira or the Canary Islands.

If you see even the Junta de Andalucía source talks about the extinct species that existed there millions of years ago (not nowadays) like the scientifical sources do, and we both agree that there are even some kind of extinct species elsewhere in Europe that just exist there, such as Rhododendron ponticum, if you see the scientifical sources don't really contradict this, neither does the other source I've presented you some months ago, neither the ones you've inserted 2 days ago (yes they talk about the extiction of such forests in Europe, which is a fact, but that doesn't directly contradict that Los Alcornocales has a +1000km2 area in Los Llanos were some laurel species coexist with other evergreen species) and the actual Junta source is reliable and valuable, not exactly promoting a Nature Park, but explaining for people interested in the topic what happens there, what grows there and for example as you could see above, they also explain why the cloud forest exists there (I didn't insert this in the laurel forest page as it's unrelated, but as you can see by the explanation and the hundreds of pics about that place, it's even explained why the extreme humidity and that big amount of fog is so common there, just in that small area) I don't think leaving it as a mixed laurel forest in that small area based on an accurate source is harming anyone. Look at the examples I said above about other places of the world listed as "laurel forests" which in fact are even mixed laurel evergreen forests. Thing is, I've properly referenced that, and I really doubt any admin would agree to delete it as no source is directly contradicting what I've wrote, since what I've wrote is based on reliable sources, as you knew it was there for so many years, previously the source was a simple blogspot but now it's a serious source. --TechnicianGB (talk) 00:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

[24]

Thank you for correcting my misunderstanding. 49.198.51.54 (talk) 09:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@49.198.51.54: No problem! Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Justyouraveragelechuga ^talk 02:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Justyouraveragelechuga: I'm sorry, what is exactly your problem with my edit? Do you want me to explain why I've changed the image? Well here you go: The "Echium tuberculatum" commonly sold in nurseries isn't the actual Echium tuberculatum found throughout the Mediterranean (which actually looks like this: [25]), and whether or not you tell me "this photo was taken in the UC Berkeley Botanical Garden and has validity", there is no problem in switching to an image of an actual E. tuberculatum, it does not contradict anything the article just said and avoids controversy and confusion regarding the appearance of this species. Please don't start an edit-war because you think the image before was prettier... Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Average Portuguese Joe very sorry. The device I use only lets me edit in source mode, so your edit looked like vandalism because of the file name.

Many apologies about that mate. --Justyouraveragelechuga ^talk 03:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

For plants, we use the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions. There is no unit for the Mediterranean basin. The Canary Islands are biogeographically part of Macaronesia, which in turn is part of Africa. See World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions#2 Africa, Category:Flora of Macaronesia, Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions. Mainland Portugal is part of Southwestern Europe; see e.g. the higher categorization of Category:Flora of Portugal. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply