This template was considered for deletion on 22 January 2011. The result of the discussion was "keep".

United States Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Weather Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

1. The sources differ on amount of snow per month.
2. 7.5 inches of snow is precise to a tenth of an inch. 190.5 mm is precise to a tenth of mm - which is 1/254th of an inch -- over 25 times more "precise" than the data being converted. This is false precision & snow should be given either to nearest mm or nearest tenth of a cm.--JimWae (talk) 06:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have corrected the Average high for New York City Central Pak belvedere castle with NOAA (EX : in July the average high is 84.9°F no 84.1°F) look : http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/398827moyennemaximaleanewyork.png NOAA

http://www.nws.noaa.gov/climate/xmacis.php?wfo=okx

And not according to Accuweather or TWC, which more or less are the rounded normals for the corresponding NWS meteorological site. GotR ^Talk 17:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In NOAA why the average in july is 84.9°F — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:39AF:800:E5E6:D1A2:8FC9:7155 (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

-I have calculated the July average high for NYC central Park using the NCDC Daily Summaries of Central Park weather stations :

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datasets/GHCND/stations/GHCND:USW00094728/detail

-And the July average high is 84.88666667 therefore the July average is 84.9°F not 84.1°F , 84.1°F is dubious. But the wikipedia NYC page moderator does not agree to change the dubious 84.1°F to real 84.9°F in New York "climate".

Without commenting on the merit of their (JFK, LGA) inclusion for an area absent of the strong variation in microclimate as is present, for example, on the US West Coast, 1) Almost no other city uses "City's Airport" instead of "City (Airport)" or even "Airport" to describe the reporting station's location. 2) Inclusion of extremes is only meaningful in the presence of a sufficiently long historical record. LGA's 1940 and JFK's 1948 do not cut it, completely missing the Dust Bowl and some of the harsher winters before then. GotR ^Talk 20:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since when did NYC experience the dust bowl (other than dust blown off of the Plains)? There is no reason not to include them in a hidden box which states specifically the limited period of record, unless you have some beef with the fact LaGuardia actually has a higher maximum temperature record than Central Park does. Famartin (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, what is wrong with listing that the data is from the airport? Most cities data is from the airport. A few exceptions exist, like San Francisco which is downtown and LA which was the Civic Center and is now UCLA. But DC is National Airport, Baltimore is BWI Airport, Boston is Logan Airport, etc etc etc. Famartin (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1) Explain how the Dust Bowl had no (indirect) impact on some of the summers in the 1930's, especially when high pressure bringing in W/SW winds is commonplace in East Coast summers. The whole purpose of including extremes is to document what is a historical "possibility"; shortening the period by > one-half defeats that purpose. 2) I never expressed any complaint about listing the reporting station's location; "City (Airport)" was merely given as an example. GotR ^Talk 22:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, but when you give a list of extremes with a SHORTER period of record, you get an idea of what is more likely to be the range of possibilities. Its nice that Central Park got below -10, but that hasn't happened in a long time in NYC. The shorter periods reflect the unlikelyhood of reaching that low, while high temperatures above 100 are still shown to be more common. This is the silliest debate I've ever heard. We're debating about something that adds information and doesn't detract from what's already there. And you have no reason to bring up Newark since its not listed here. Famartin (talk) 11:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regardless of your own flawed interpretation (that −15 was recorded just 6 years outside of LGA's record) of the shortened period, one cannot argue that NYC displays a significant variation in natural microclimate (UHI doesn't count), which is the only reasonable justification to including additional stations in the first place. And, sorry, but making stupid remarks in edit summaries such as "You have a problem with LaGuardia's 107?" invites rebuttals by default; although not within city limits, EWR just as nearly distant from Manhattan as is JFK. GotR ^Talk 19:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, now you show your true Manhattan-centricness. This article is about NEW YORK CITY, not MANHATTAN. Which means the outer borough airport climate sites (which are taken just as seriously as Central Park's) are just as relevant. No reason to include NEWARK since its not within NEW YORK CITY, while LAGUARDIA and JFK are. UHI definitely counts. So do the decreased precipitation totals away from Central Park. Stop being Manhattan-centric and realize that NYC is more than just one island. Famartin (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The point is, the temperature averages are extremely similar, completely unlike, for example, the centre of Toronto vs. Pearson, yet for Toronto the averages for Pearson were removed long ago. Besides, if you wish to re-include LGA and JFK, that is what Geography of New York City is for. The main article itself is a summary. No, I never argued for inclusion of EWR, and you have no proof suggesting I am ignorant of the existence of the 5 boroughs. GotR ^Talk 20:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's funny you suggest using the geography article... because they use the same weather box template! You're a riot, you know that? Anyway, I'm not budging, I've already laid out my arguments and you haven't disproven any of them. Famartin (talk) 00:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I want to edit the precipitation days and precipitation inches. 68.195.44.54 (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is the reason behind editing the precipitation days and precipitation inches? I checked the sources and they are correct so there is no need to change them. Ssbbplayer (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

96.232.40.214 (talk) 14:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We added a new weatherbox for 2010-2019 normals::

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 14:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]