Jump to content

Talk:White Christmas (weather)

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

Untitled

[edit]

I have recently found the bing crosby merry christmas album set it is on decca i only have 4 sides i am missing the other 4 sides itis a 4 album set I was wandering ifit might be worth something to anyone it is in very good shape aside from not being complete if you could help me find out if it is worthless or not

best-selling singleRich Farmbrough 15:12, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Page move

[edit]

White Christmas (snow) reads a little strangely. To disambiguate, maybe something like White Christmas (event) or White Christmas (phenomenon) would be better? -Runningonbrains 19:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide view

[edit]

As Hateless keeps removing the worldwide perspective tag, and I don't want to start an edit war, I'll start discussion here.

This article does not represent a worldwide view. It mentions details and statistics for North America, and gives a little generic details about places in Europe, but makes no mention of anywhere else. What are the chances in Russia? Is it an important tradition there? What about the Southern Hemisphere? I know it's summer there, but this should be mentioned in the article for people who aren't as astute. And where are the references? I'm going to add a tag, as there are none in the first (and only important) paragraph. Sorry if I sound confrontational, I don't mean to be, just want to help make a better article. -Runningonbrains 21:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White Christmases have been known to occur on a smaller scale in the souther hemisphere. Hobart in 2000 had a White Christmas, I remember.

I hate how these Christmas articles have an American bias. It's as if Amercians don't think anyone exists outside their own country. Katana Geldar 01:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then add more information! As a first-generation American, I understand that Americans are often somewhat dismissive of the rest of the world. But you aren't going to get anywhere by asking us to write about something which we don't know much about (i.e., Christmas in the rest of the world.) Please help remove the bias by adding your own information. 128.36.158.58 (talk) 15:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UK definition

[edit]

The Irish definition is listed, but not the British, which is that snow has to fall on the MET Office roof http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/578168.stm Jddriessen (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even taking the generous definition of a white Christmas as snow falling in the sky, rather than actually laying or landing on the ground, a 75 percent probability for Lerwick seems unrealistically high, quite ridiculous really! Where do the probability figures come from? Looking around on the internet, I couldn't find anything close to the figures given in the table. For example, Liam Dutton, a regular weather forecaster on various British TV channels, currently working for Channel 4 News, quotes the Met office here giving odds for snow falling on Christmas day, and all the probability figures are much lower than the table's, except for London. I found a site that claims to give the average odds for snow actually lying on Christmas day, here for Europe with some European cities highlighted (notably Aberdeen at 14%), and the probability of snow appears to be no more than about 3 times higher for Northern Britain than Southern Britain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.216.101 (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My recollection is likewise of it being a single snowflake landing on the roof of the Met office. Or maybe some other building in London, which might have worked as the definition of a London white Christmas but is pretty useless as a definition of a white Christmas in totally different parts of the UK. I guess these other parts would have similar definitions using a suitable local building? It's still not clear to me what definition is being used by the source from which the table of probabilities has been compiled.
I see now:
Before 2006 for betting purposes, a Met Office employee was required to record if any snow fell on the London Weather Centre over the 24 hours of Christmas Day; after 2006 computers were used. An "official" white Christmas is defined by the Met Office as "one snowflake to be observed falling in the 24 hours of 25 December somewhere in the UK"
Does "somewhere in the UK" mean there's now no such thing as a white Christmas in London or a white Christmas in Aberdeen or wherever, but if one snowflake is observed anywhere then it's a white Christmas in the UK as a whole? And are these computers now watching the images from cameras around the UK and flagging if their AI spots a snowflake? — Smjg (talk) 13:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles and San Francisco White Christmas probability

[edit]

The article states that Los Angeles and San Francisco have a 1% probability of experiencing a White Christmas. When did those two cities experience a White Christmas? The Los Angeles downtown area has never recorded a snowfall of an inch or more. San Francisco has six snowstorms in its recorded history, and none of them were on Christmas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpinzow (talk • contribs) 18:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Actually it did snow in san francisco on christmas in the 1800's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.130.9 (talk) 22:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image

[edit]

I removed the image from this article because it does not represent a white christmas - it simply showed a house in the snow. From the image description it was photographed on the 9th December so was not even taken at christmas. But apart from this technicality the image has nothing else to suggest it is a christmas scene. It is just a house in the snow. Feel free to replace the image with one taken at christmas and which includes some imagery that actually suggests it's actually christmas but please don't restore that particular image as it is not suitable. Polyamorph (talk) 18:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this or this might be better, still not perfect as they were still not taken on christmas eve or christmas day but at least it has some christmas imagery (as opposed to a single undecorated house). Moreover, I'm sure if asked someone on commons would be able to come up with a suitable image, from today for example! Polyamorph (talk) 18:47, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see someone has already found an alternative! Still not taken on christmas day (as per the definition in this article) but nevertheless I personally think it is better to include some christmas imagery as opposed to simply a winter scene. Polyamorph (talk) 18:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland 2010

[edit]

Someone recently changed the discussion of 2004 being Ireland's most recent white Christmas to the current text, which claims that 2010 was a white Christmas (from previous snowfall) but then cites a source from 2006. It's unclear to me whether or not snow on the ground - not falling - qualifies as a white Christmas in Ireland. If so, maybe someone can find a better source? It's good to be topical but we should be accurate. If not, maybe we should just change it back to 2004? AgnosticAphid talk 19:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History per Irving Berlin

[edit]

Did the concept of a "White Christmas" exist prior to Irving Berlin, or did his song make this an important concept? Wschart (talk) 18:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved 'White Christmas' to White Christmas (weather) and move the disambiguation page to White Christmas. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

– A quick check of the incoming links to White Christmas, currently about the weather phenomenon, shows that very few incoming links are actually referring to a weather thing. Pages such as Christmas music, Dave Koz, The Little Drummer Boy, A Jolly Christmas from Frank Sinatra, The Polar Express (soundtrack), Bing Crosby: The Voice of Christmas to name a few — all of these pages link to White Christmas when they should be linking to White Christmas (song). I could only find maybe 3 or 4 pages that correctly link to White Christmas in reference to the weather term.

Furthermore, the page view stats for Juneshow 7524 hits for White Christmas (song) in June, vs. 3188 for White Christmas. Even during the Christmas months, the song got 127,058 hits in December 2011, vs 44331 for the weather event.

So between the page view statistics and the huge number of inbound links that should be pointing to White Christmas (song) but currently point to White Christmas instead, I think it's clear that the song is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and the thing that most people are looking for when they type in "White Christmas". I don't have a suggestion as to what White Christmas should be moved to, though — "Snow at Christmas"? "White Christmas (weather)"? --Relisted JHunterJ (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC) Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC) Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC) I think that White Christmas should be a disambiguation page.[reply]

  • Oppose if anything, the disambiguation page should be primary if this isn't. And it doesn't really matter how the term came into existence, otherwise Boston Lincolnshire would be primary over Boston Massachusetts. My personal opinion is that the film is also highly notable. Anecdotally, news reports from the Christmas season usually refer to a Christmas with snow as "white Christmas", and probabilities of such occurring. This page can be moved to White Christmas (term). -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree that the disambiguation page should be primary link when people just link to White Christmas and not White Christmas (song), kind of like Joker goes straight to a disambiguation page. It would be hard to determine whether White Christmas the song or White Christmas the movie should just be called White Christmas. I agree that the real move should be just for the term White Christmas, like to White Christmas (weather event) or White Christmas (term). Housewatcher (talk) 05:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prospective closer's comments I would close this right now – obviously we have clear support for the move of the dab page here. However, you may or may not be aware of the major cleanup this type of move requires (to be done right). On a typical close, you maybe have ten double redirects to fix, a fair use image, a lead and hatnote tweak and a sort key. This type of move, by contrast, disconnects all the pages that pointed here, leaving all those pages needing hand dabbing (there's about 600, and no, there's no bot that does this in the move's wake). So, with that in mind, we need a clear consensus on where this page will point, so that the work inherent in this type of move is not done in vain. Per above, right now the prospects appear to be White Christmas (weather) and White Christmas (term).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Frustratingly, despite my note, this was closed without any of the pages it broke being fixed (not even the redirects repointed). I have hand dabbed 185 pages, after looking at about 600. Took about three hours. Closes should not be done if the cleanup is not going to be undertaken.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I could tell, closing of this RM has no bearing on the cleanup, because most of the inbound links are supposed to go to White Christmas (song), which could be corrected at any time regardless of the outcome or even the existence of this RM. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After fixing the link in Template:Christmas, I don't see anywhere near 600 pages in article space linking to White Christmas. Less than 150 total, and many of those are user pages, archives, talk pages, etc. that don't need to be changed. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I cleaned up those as well because I needed to look at all the pages to see which were broken, but no, there were 31 links broken by the move. Just because a larger portion were already broken, and that meant a lot more needed to be looked at than would be the case in other circumstances, doesn't mean the 31 links broken by the move didn't need to be cleaned up.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand how that was an argument for delaying the move. The links needed cleanup before; they needed cleanup after (and probably still do, but I haven't looked). Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Table flattening

[edit]

While understandable from a visual perspective, flattening those tables has broken the sorting. Unless there is an argument to be made that sorting isn't important, the flattening should probably be undone.

Is there an alternate solution that puts the long tables adjacent to each other?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sorting still works. It requires three (3) clicks instead of one to get the 100% probability at the top of each row. For example, the new-and-improved table for Canada looks better now in my view, because all three locations with the number 100% are at the top (in the first row), and going down from there. I appreciate the work put into the creation of these databases, but this is a Wikipedia article with considerable ammount of readable prose also. Poeticbent talk 15:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Doing three clicks, one on each Probability column, doesn't produce three columns all sorted by probability from top to bottom. Each click resorts all rows so that the column that you click is sorted, but the others are not.
I agree that large areas of white space don't look as nice, but, when the tables were in the long format, readers could see where a particular location sorted with respect all of the others in the table, not just those that arbitrarily ended up in that particular column.
The vast sea of white space and the arbitrary column assignments are why I wondered about an alternative construct. Perhaps a new section with the Canadian and US tables side by side, or combined into a single table with additional country and state / province columns? The same could be done for the European tables. It is even possible that all of the tables could be combined into one. If any of these were to be adopted, then sorting would work as it is intended, and there would be less white space.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the major problem with the initial monster table was that absolutely nothing was organized. No decreasing percentage points to go from 100% down, and no alphabetical order of locations. As a result, too much was put on automatic pilot unnecessarily. Poeticbent talk 16:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, here are both long form tables, each in alpha order, and both inside another table. This option is discouraged because it doesn't comport well with the accessibility rules. For here it's fine. It does show that both could use separate columns for state/province because of duplicate city names.
Extended content
North America
Canada
Location Probability
Brandon 93%
Calgary 56%
Charlottetown 79%
Edmonton 86%
Fredericton 77%
Goose Bay 98%
Grande Prairie 84%
Halifax 58%
Hamilton 61%
Iqaluit 100%
Kamloops 49%
Kelowna 61%
Kenora 100%
London 60%
Medicine Hat 56%
Moncton 74%
Montreal 77%
Ottawa 81%
Penticton 28%
Prince George 91%
Quebec City 98%
Regina 91%
Saint John 61%
Sarnia 61%
Saskatoon 93%
Stephenville 82%
St. John's 63%
Sudbury 95%
Thunder Bay 96%
Timmins 98%
Toronto 36%
Vancouver 25%
Victoria 11%
Whitehorse 100%
Wiarton 82%
Windsor 46%
Winnipeg 98%
Yellowknife 100%
United States
Location Probability
Akron, Ohio 60%
Albuquerque, New Mexico 3%
Amarillo, Texas 7%
Anchorage, Alaska 90%
Annette Island, Alaska 17%
Boise, Idaho 30%
Boston, Massachusetts 23%
Casper, Wyoming 47%
Charleston, South Carolina 1%
Charleston, West Virginia 30%
Charlotte, North Carolina 5%
Chicago, Illinois 40%
Cleveland, Ohio 60%
Concord, New Hampshire 23%
Dallas, Texas 7%
Denver, Colorado 50%
Des Moines, Iowa 50%
Detroit, Michigan 50%
Duluth, Minnesota 97%
Fairbanks, Alaska 100%
Fargo, North Dakota 83%
Hartford, Connecticut 57%
Helena, Montana 67%
Honolulu, Hawaii 0%
Huntington, West Virginia 23%
Indianapolis, Indiana 13%
Little Rock, Arkansas 3%
Los Angeles, California 1%
Louisville, Kentucky 13%
Marquette, Michigan 90%
Massena, New York 77%
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 60%
Nashville, Tennessee 12%
Newark, New Jersey 23%
New York City, New York 22%
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 3%
Omaha, Nebraska 44%
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 10%
Phoenix, Arizona 1%
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 33%
Portland, Maine 83%
Portland, Oregon 2%
Providence, Rhode Island 37%
Rapid City, South Dakota 47%
Reno, Nevada 20%
Richmond, Virginia 7%
Salt Lake City, Utah 53%
San Francisco, California 2%
Savannah, Georgia 1%
Seattle, Washington 7%
Spokane, Washington 70%
St. Louis, Missouri 23%
Topeka, Kansas 23%
Washington, D.C. 5%
Wausau, Wisconsin 93%
Wilmington, Delaware 13%
—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Trappist the monk, you did a very nice job but please remember that the article is specifically about the "White Christmas" meaning that the 100% probability of snow should always be at the top of the list for relevancy. I think I'm going to leave it up to you to do the re-formatting. You seem to know what you're doing. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 18:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. If any data change in these tables, it will be the data in the probability columns. City names don't usually get changed but the environment is changing. It is easier to simply update the data column to a new number than it is to update a number and then move the row to its new position. Having moved a bunch of rows to get these tables sorted by location, I know this to be true.
Here are both tables, side by side, in alpha order, a state or province column added:
Extended content
United States
State/province Location Probability (%)
Akron Ohio 60
Albuquerque New Mexico 3
Amarillo Texas 7
Anchorage Alaska 90
Annette Island Alaska 17
Boise Idaho 30
Boston Massachusetts 23
Casper Wyoming 47
Charleston South Carolina 1
Charleston West Virginia 30
Charlotte North Carolina 5
Chicago Illinois 40
Cleveland Ohio 60
Concord New Hampshire 23
Dallas Texas 7
Denver Colorado 50
Des Moines Iowa 50
Detroit Michigan 50
Duluth Minnesota 97
Fairbanks Alaska 100
Fargo North Dakota 83
Hartford Connecticut 57
Helena Montana 67
Honolulu Hawaii 0
Huntington West Virginia 23
Indianapolis Indiana 13
Little Rock Arkansas 3
Los Angeles California 1
Louisville Kentucky 13
Marquette Michigan 90
Massena New York 77
Milwaukee Wisconsin 60
Nashville Tennessee 12
Newark New Jersey 23
New York City New York 22
Oklahoma City Oklahoma 3
Omaha Nebraska 44
Philadelphia Pennsylvania 10
Phoenix Arizona 1
Pittsburgh Pennsylvania 33
Portland Maine 83
Portland Oregon 2
Providence Rhode Island 37
Rapid City South Dakota 47
Reno Nevada 20
Richmond Virginia 7
Salt Lake City Utah 53
San Francisco California 2
Savannah Georgia 1
Seattle Washington 7
Spokane Washington 70
St. Louis Missouri 23
Topeka Kansas 23
Washington, D.C. 5
Wausau Wisconsin 93
Wilmington Delaware 13
Canada
State/province Location Probability (%)
Brandon Manitoba 93
Calgary Alberta 56
Charlottetown Prince Edward Island 79
Edmonton Alberta 86
Fredericton New Brunswick 77
Goose Bay Newfoundland and Labrador 98
Grande Prairie Alberta 84
Halifax Nova Scotia 58
Hamilton Ontario 61
Iqaluit Nunavut 100
Kamloops British Columbia 49
Kelowna British Columbia 61
Kenora Ontario 100
London Ontario 60
Medicine Hat Alberta 56
Moncton New Brunswick 74
Montreal Quebec 77
Ottawa Ontario 81
Penticton British Columbia 28
Prince George British Columbia 91
Quebec City Quebec 98
Regina Saskatchewan 91
Saint John New Brunswick 61
Sarnia Ontario 61
Saskatoon Saskatchewan 93
Stephenville Newfoundland and Labrador 82
St. John's Newfoundland and Labrador 63
Sudbury Ontario 95
Thunder Bay Ontario 96
Timmins Ontario 98
Toronto Ontario 36
Vancouver British Columbia 25
Victoria British Columbia 11
Whitehorse Yukon 100
Wiarton Ontario 82
Windsor Ontario 46
Winnipeg Manitoba 98
Yellowknife Northwest Territories 100
—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your hard work but this data is certainly corrupt. it may be only a little corrupt, but with no direct way to verify it, im suspicious of the whole set. when i get a hcance i'll get back to this and pore through the history to try to track down the original source. if the original source claims that Concord NH has only 23% , I will say that I dont believe that source and we should look for something better. —Soap— 20:31, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on White Christmas (weather). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on White Christmas (weather). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on White Christmas (weather). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

source??

[edit]

White_Christmas_(weather)#Tables_for_North_America is almost certainly corrupt. how could Concord NH have only a 23% chance when nearby Portland Maine has 83% ? If we have no way to verify the data, the whole chart is unreliable. i notice one wrong value but Im skeptical of all of the rest. the low number for Concord NH has apparenrtly been in the article for at least 4 yrs. —Soap— 20:29, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The number 23 occurs suspiciously often in the data set as a whole. —Soap— 16:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC) It seems the data was altered several times in 2011 in edits such as this and this. We accepted these edits, so I would say the table today is no longer attached to the (now deleted) data source from 2008. I dont want to have to revert to the 2008 data and use a dead link as the source, so I will look for something else, but as of right now I say that we are better off without the table than with it. —Soap— 16:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted all of the data, since nobody replied. The map is still there and provides a clearer way to visualize the data and has no errors. —Soap— 19:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Soap: As a screen reader-using weather nut from Down Under who can't use maps , I found the tables very interesting and useful when I read the article a few years ago. I've discovered some relatively up-to-date links for this data, so I've put the tables back with footnotes to the new sources. The US figures indeed varied a lot more than the Canadian ones. I hope I haven't messed anything up ... and if I have data-wise, the info can properly be verified now! Graham87 13:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham87: Thank you very much. I think I did the right thing, since having no data is better than having false data, and I was on a mobile hotspot throughout all of 2018 so I could not easily track down better data. I wasnt just doing it to make more work for other people. I notice now that the UK data is corrupt too .... I'll fix that in a little while. Thanks, —Soap— 14:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

units

[edit]

Minor point - in some paragaphs we have "X in (y cm)" and in some it's "Y cm (X in)". What is the convention showing metric and imperial equivalents ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.134.71.108 (talk) 09:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:White_Christmas_(weather)&oldid=1205270744"