Contents

Talk:Marble Bar, Western Australia

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Australia: Places / Western Australia Low‑importance Marble Bar, Western Australia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Australian places (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Western Australia (assessed as Low-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Western Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance. Western Australia Pilbara This article is within the scope of WikiProject Western Australia Pilbara, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Pilbara on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Western Australia PilbaraWikipedia:WikiProject Western Australia PilbaraTemplate:WikiProject Western Australia PilbaraWestern Australia Pilbara articles

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

The temperature says 100 degrees farenheit is 40 degrees celsius - I do not think that is correct. It should be 38 but looks like it has been entered with a formula. In the article for "heat wave" the conversion is mentioned several times to be 38 degrees celsius. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.244.190.66 (talk) 08:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks very much for pointing this out. The error was my fault ... what a difference a minus sign can make!Graham87 15:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The claim『most consecutive days of 100 °F』worldwide is provably incorrect. From personal communication with M. Herrera, the well known weather extremes researcher, I know that the world record is held by Makkah and is 227 consecutive days (31 March 2010 to 12 November 2010). The duration of 227 consecutive days is way above the 160 days claimed here and can be checked here: http://www.meteomanz.com/sy2?l=1&cou=2024&ind=41030&d1=28&m1=03&y1=2010&d2=26&m2=04&y2=2010 (change d1, m1, d2 and m2 to look at the following dates in 30-day-blocks). In the daily overview an erroneous max of only 33.2 is reported for 10 October 2010, while the 3-hourly-data show that the max was at least 42 C that day: http://www.meteomanz.com/sy1?ty=hp&ind=41030&y1=2010&m1=10&d1=10&y2=2010&m2=10&d2=10 Other locations also have more than 160 consecutive days with at least 100F (e.g. Mitribah, Kuwait, in 2012). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.198.200.3 (talk) 13:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. However, this is original research. and wouldn't be a good citation for Wikipedia. When a secondary source comes up that nothes the new record, it can be added. Graham87 14:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Graham87 too. A secondary source is required for a statement like that rather than a primary source that only shows the raw data. This is because the Bureau of Meteorology is a reliable source for Australian weather data. Ssbbplayer (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I did not start modifiying the article because I could not find a proper reference mentioning more than 160 consecutive days. Does anybody else know of one? I did not find any, unfortunately. Regards, Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.198.200.3 (talk) 10:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think in this case, we should accept it for now until a new claim has been published in a reliable, secondary source (much like how the old 58.0 C record in Libya was accepted until it was discredited by WMO). It is problematic when you said you could not find a proper reference mentioning more than 160 consecutive days. It would avoid violating WP:OR and pointless edit wars. I did checked through the Bureau of Meteorology's website and found that most of the observations were made in standard conditions after 1910 so it is reliable (also see the metadata for the station as well). Ssbbplayer (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]