Fort Towson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Good articleMissoula, Montana has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 2, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
February 8, 2012Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article


Hank Green and nuclear free

I have two proposals of things to add to the article: that Hank Green of the vlogbrothers currently lives there and that it was the first ever city in the US to be declared nuclear free (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-free_zone#United_States). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:C440:20:1116:892D:FD93:E6FC:BF65 (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the nuclear-free zone thing could get a line in the politics section if it could be properly sourced. Hank Green, on the other hand, is already on the List of people from Missoula, Montana page and certainly doesn't have any notoriety worthy of the main page. As far as I'm concerned, he's best known for having anonymous users add his name to Missoula's Wikipedia page. Wow. Actually, that gives me an idea. Every time one of us has to remove "Hank Green" (which we inevitably will), I say that we also remove his name from the List of people from Missoula, Montana page that his name is already on out of spite. He was barely put on that one anyway. Your welcome. Dsetay (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do y’all hate him so much? He’s an innovative and influential entertainer, activist, and educator. Why are you so reluctant to acknowledge that he lives in your town? Starzajo (talk) 00:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infrastructure section

I'm guessing that I've made the Infrastructure section too long. Before certain people begin deleting broad swaths of it as certain editors have a tendency to do, I'm suggesting that the section be made into its own separate page and summarized here. I'll nominate myself to do it since, well, I'm pretty sure no one else will. I plan on fixing the other sections first though (Except for Economy, of course. That'll left for the self-declared experts) because I'm tired of looking at it for now. Of course, I'm open to any other suggestions.

Dsetay (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think some copyediting can salvage it, I chopped some. Montanabw(talk) 00:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Highways

this diff is the former and current version of the highways section, preserving the refs if someone wanted to take them elsewhere. I rather boldly chopped this down because it really was a bit excessive; I kept that all the highways exist, a bit of minor trivia about each IF it was relevant to Missoula, and really, most of the rest should go into the articles on the respective highways. I also tossed all the stuff on the exits and which road goes where, because I doubt anyone is really going to care, and absent a map, it isn't helpful to a tourist, JMO. Hope this edit is viewed as being in good faith, I was concerned we had a WP:UNDUE problem here, as well as a slightly flowery, encyclopedic tone. Montanabw(talk) 23:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Economics Section

Here are some resources for whomever plans on doing the Economy section. Not all go to the municipal area and simply consider the Missoula MSA. Good luck.

Dsetay (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Missoula, Montana/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cadiomals (talk · contribs) 20:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC) So far I have read through the article and it is well written, organized and broad in its coverage. I will be checking out the citations and references for factual accuracy and verifiability, but so far this article has a good chance of getting GA. Cadiomals (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my full review:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This is an organized, well-written, well-sourced article

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Good prose that meets most/almost all WP guidelines
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    adequately sourced where necessary
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
    no original research is apparent as all necessary statements are cited
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
    Goes into detail without getting off topic
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    No NPOV is apparent
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Some very nice pictures, just the right amount
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    The strong points are that it is informative and organized. Prose and citations are adequate but could still be improved, but overall this meets the good article criteria.

Population change? (at least add *)

Hi, I think there should at least be an Asterisk next to the city and county population estimates. I have seen other cities around the world add this because even when a college is out (in most cases I have seen) students seem to stay within the college's residing city, making the estimate larger. What I would like to see:

city- 68,788 *(84,430- See details)

Metro- 109,299 *(124,941- See details)

Something like this would make me very happy if anyone can help or respond it would be great.. as it has been bugging me tremendously.. Thanks

ATOTHEJPiano (talk)

Census numbers are census numbers. That's what we need to use. Montanabw(talk) 22:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand what I am trying to say.. I am saying to use both figures.. of course we need to keep the 2010 census estimate; But why not basically add a notice saying: 68,788 is the population of the city- (but when the students of the university are added, it is 84,430). I just want people to see demographic change when students are enrolled in the University. We don't have to change the number on the demographic chart's.. just add something to show that the University is Missoula's base for growth. Can someone at least add a small section about this... I think its worth noting.

ATOTHEJPiano (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you don't seem to realize that most of the students are already counted in the 2010 census totals for the city and metro area. http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2010/resid_rules/resid_rules.html In other words, the students are factored into the population of the city. without the students factored in Missoula’s population would be closer to 52,000 and the metro area closer to 94,000.

Missoulianette (talk) 00:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like others alluded to above, the census is a snapshot in time where they (theoretically anyway) ask everyone in the country where their primary residence was on a specific day. The primary residence of all full-time college students at UM would either be in or around Missoula (minus the few who commute from East Missoula or Frenchtown, the student population has already been counted). Dsetay (talk) 12:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There has already been a huge edit war over this, ATOTHEJPiano, and the question of transient student population of a college town in general has been long settled to NOT be included, for many of the reasons the others here have mentioned; many students don't live within the city limits, many live there year-round and don't leave, a summer drop can also reflect graduates leaving town or summer employment elsewhere, and so the number of enrolled students really cannot be correlated in ANY meaningful way to the town's population, as many are nontraditional or at least are not dorm-dwellers. Montanabw(talk) 23:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New census population estimates

I hope this does not make anyone upset, but I changed the population numbers to official census estimates. I know they are estimates, but I always feel obligated to update the estimates as soon as they are revealed to the public. It is just an update. Please do not get upset. Thanks,

Missoulian (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New section architecture add on?

I think somewhere in the article (more likely under Infrastructure), it should list some significant feature's of Missoula's architecture history, and present day look. anyone else have a thought on this subject? Like I said earlier, I think it could be added under "Infrastructure" and then underneath "City layout and development". Missoulian (talk) 23:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What the...?

Is there a reason this page is again being inundated with lists and too many pictures that took months to get rid of in the first place? Please don't try to turn this in the Billings page with a Points of Interest tour-guide field. That page is crap, remember. Dsetay (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I won't stop you if you revert (I didn't add that stuff). Article is a GA, don't want to screw that up. I'm not sure which edit is the last "clean" version, but if you go back to it, those wishing to add new material have the burden. I think some of the restructuring of headings in the transportation section was OK, but there isn't a need to add two photos of the Mountain Line... there is also a Downtown Missoula article, where a lot of that can go... Montanabw(talk) 21:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Collage?

Hi everyone, I have not been active for the Missoula Wikipedia page for quite some time (5-6 months). I like editing pages on Wikipedia but it takes time and effort (most people know this). I just wanted to throw the idea of creating a collage for the main Wikipedia picture. We as a community have considered this before, but ultimately never went through with it. I am still really interested in doing so. Let me know what others think. Thanks,

Missoulian (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They just did it for Billings, Montana and theirs looks pretty good. I'd say if nice and inclusive, all of commons-approved images, it's worth a try. Maybe put up your drafts here for comment. Montanabw(talk) 00:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I have recently taken some good photos of Missoula and the surrounding area. They include Downtown and several neighborhoods, parks, and outlying areas. I have also taken some photos of landmarks (including the Wilma Building, the XXXX's. the carousel, the mall, etc.) I will post several collages and see what everyone thinks, and ask for suggestions on what might be improved. I will post them within a week from this post. Thanks,

Missoulian (talk) 02:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the one they did for Billings, Montana, it wasn't too bad! (Except they didn't need two photos of the rims...) My take on collages is that it's important to highlight the community in a representative way that still looks good in the browser, about 5-7 images tops, IMHO... also, not to use too many out of city limits photos, as those are of the county, not the city (UM against Mount Sentinel is classic, and one image that can incorporate scenery) one idea might be to post the best 6-10 pics you'd like to use and see which ones get a salute. IMHO, the Wilma and the Carousel have potential, but a photo of the mall is a waste of time, every town of any size has a mall, Missoula's is not particularly special (other than one of only three decent ones in the whole state) and so that's not particularly unique about Missoula, but what about all the unique architecture at UM, like Main Hall? Also look to historic buildings like the Courthouse. Maybe a commercial building with a unique setting...St. Pat's hospital, maybe...just ideas. Montanabw(talk) 22:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Hello everyone I have finally finished some sample collages that I think are suitable to become the Front page picture for our Missoula article. Let me know your opinion's and hopefully you all like them, if you have suggestions on what could be improved please tell me. All the photos in the collage(s) were taken by myself today (the 27th of April).

Missoulian (talk) 00:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sample collage 1
Sample collage 2

Those look good, nice job! Myself I like the one with the courthouse the best. Missoula Dude (talk) 02:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're on the right track, but here's my take:
  1. First off, if there are not enough suitable images already on commons, maybe reshoot some when the sky is blue, these have overcast skies and makes Missoula look like it does in the winter! (Lived through five Missoula winters, very depressing time of year there) See how these look in sun: File:Missoula county courthouse.jpg, File:Missoula, Montana - Wilma Theater.JPG
  2. For layout, the second layout design is better than the first; the panoramas just don't work, too small.
  3. The three images that are "must haves" IMHO, are Main Hall, the Wilma, and the Courthouse. Rankin Hall is a maybe, we don't want to overdo the UM images, but given UM's prominence, two images of UM MIGHT be acceptable. Should try to shoot Main Hall with the "M" visible if you can!
  4. Both images have too many boring modern buildings. Find more funky ones like File:Northern Pacific Railroad Depot (2012) - Missoula County, Montana.png or File:Gleim Building.JPG
  5. Nix washington-Grizzly stadium, sure, it's a football stadium, but ... yawn... or maybe fill it up and use something like this: File:WaGriz RollingStones.jpg or another one of afull stadium (there is one more at commons, can't find it now...)
  6. Maybe do an interior of the carousel, showing the horse (I might have some, but all probably have people on them...)
  7. GOTTA add this one (posted here too) File:Fall Clark Fork.jpg, can;t tell which tall building visible in the background, but WOW!
    WOW!
  8. Note more images of possible use here and here

Al for now. Montanabw(talk) 22:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I will continue to make some new collages with the suggestions you had in mind. Thanks for the overall positive feedback so far... I will get some more samples uploaded within a few days.

Missoulian (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my free time I created this collage based on User:Montanabw suggestions... let me know what you think.

Missoulian (talk) 04:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sample collage 3
Hmmm. movement. Football stadium shot is a good add, I'd try to get the courthouse in sunshine. I'd add main hall in the center sort of like Layout 2 has that other building, and I'd dump the panorama of the town (too small in a collage) in favor of something else. The shot of the WIlma might be as good as we have, but I wish there was one with it in the center, not off-kilter (perhaps you can download that image and play with cropping it, then re-upload??) We can put the panorama elsewhere in the article. Montanabw(talk) 16:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Here is my final attempt to please everyone... I have made 4 more collages based off suggestions given, and hopefully we can decide on Missoula's new front page picture.

sample collage 4
sample collage 5
sample collage 6
sample collage 7
sample collage 8

I personally like the 5th collage the best, as it showcases many different parts of town, while staying within 8 total images. My personal second favorite is the 7th or 8th. Let me know your opinions and hopefully we can decide unanimously.

Missoulian (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more or less OK with the basic layout of 5, except that I'd swap the Clark Fork in autumn photo where the one of the courthouse is, and toss the boring high rise altogether (which building is that, anyway?) because no one visits Montana to see a high-rise (only we Montanans are impressed at the sight of a building of six floors...sigh) Maybe don't replace it and let the Washington-Grizzley stadium photo go the width that subsection... When we find or take images of Main Hall, the Wilma and the Courthouse taken on bright sunny days, we can swap them out later. We don't really want to portray Missoula in its gloomy season, it's autumn when it's most glorious! Montanabw(talk) 20:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8 is definitely better. But what is that very boring modern building? Thought it was either one of the hi-rise dorms or the Millennial building, but doesn't quite look right... do we need it in there? Seems there must be something cooler to use...interior of the carousel maybe? Or some more weird and funky architecture like the Xs sculpture by the depot at the top of Higgins, maybe during a farmer's market (are they still doing the farmer's market up there?)? (dang but all photos I have of carousel have identifiable people on the horses, so can't use). Something about the funky granola culture of Missoula, which is part of why it's a special community? (was over there this past weekend, but cloudy whenever I was anywhere where a photo would be nice, got a good shot of Bernice's Bakery, but only with cell phone, not sure it's relevant here...) Montanabw(talk) 17:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The building which you are referring to is the Broadway building a part of St. Patrick hospital near the outskirts of downtown. It was a pretty miraculous building for Montana standards when it was built in 2002. It has 8 total stories with two underground floors for parking and hosts over 685,000 sq. feet of usable space (all medical use). I have always thought it was a neat addition to the skyline of Missoula. I like the current layout and will continue to make more collages over the next few weeks. I will post them when I get a chance, but I am glad most of us like the current photo we are using.

Missoulian (talk) 02:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the hospital. I remember when they blew up the old one; that was quite a day. I guess my thinking is that maybe that image would do better as a stand-alone in the section on the medical facilities; Mizoo has a good reputation for a heart center, etc., that would be a bit to expand upon...as it sits, given that it has the same "look" as several other modern buildings, I'm not certain it's the best in the collage... Montanabw(talk) 20:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm just concerned about whether all those photos are without copyright. If even one of them isn't the Wikipolice will remove the whole collage.Dsetay (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, though I think most were taken by Missoulian, who I presume uploaded them under the proper license at commons. That said, It IS a good idea to list all the original images - at commons - so that copyright can be verified. Montanabw(talk) 19:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by Zzomtceo (Michael Aranda, Emily Graslie, Hank Green)

Several edits that I made were reverted by Montanabw. I don't think they should've been undone and rather than start an edit war I decided to create this talk section. Should the most recent edit by zzomtceo be kept or removed. I think that it provided relevant information about people from Missoula. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzomtceo (talk • contribs) 23:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These links are to three people who have put videos on YouTube. Nothing notable about them, I'm surprised their articles haven't already been AfD'd. What is WP:NOTABLE about them? Montanabw(talk) 00:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They have acquired a sizable following, and are (at least in the case of Hank Green) very influential 173.241.124.178 (talk) 00:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess they don't qualify for the main page. But there's no way they qualify for AfD. Zzomtceo (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neighborhoods and zones of Missoula, Montana

Can someone please look at linking to this orphaned article? Gbawden (talk) 08:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Missoula, Montana. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 16:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


@Cyberbot II: That page isn’t on the Internet Archive. What is archived there is a redirect to the top level of their website. I reverted the changes to [[Missoula, Montana]] while adding {{cbignore}}. I haven’t set the checked parameter to true above because the resulting output would be that the “Archived sources ha[ve] been checked to be working” which is not the case.
LLarson (talk) 16:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the source’s content, I’ve changed the checked parameter to true because it conforms to the semantic intention of the hook: the source doesn’t need to be checked again. Perhaps, though, Cyberbot II’s boilerplate could use an update to avoid this ambiguity in the future? —LLarson (said & done) 16:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Missoula Climate

(Moved from user talk) Regarding the climate data to Missoula, I had to edit the climate box for a couple of reasons and undid your edit. First the precipitation data is slightly off. For example in the previous revision the May and October precipitation should be 2.01 inches and 0.88 inches respectively, not 2.00 inches and 0.89 inches. Secondly in the NowData source which has data on the normals, they updated the website a year ago and unfortunately removed information regarding average days with precipitation and snowy days. That's why I introduced this source for those values (you can see the readme file) to know how to interpret the data. Both of them display normals, not averages and have the same values as each other. Lastly, if you look up the WMO climatological normals for this location, sunshine hours are recorded as mean monthly sunshine hours only. HKO is incorrect in taking these values and converting them into daily hours, which introduces rounding errors. Plus, the source allows the sunshine data to be easily verified. Ssbbplayer (talk) 00:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You put in the high temp records, not averages. Missoula might be the banana belt of Montana, but to say that the average or normal high in January is 66 degrees is utter and complete nonsense. Montanabw(talk) 00:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. That is the record high in January. If you look closely at what the weather box (template) displays and the syntax in it, it displays the 66 degrees as the record high in January and the normal high as 33.2 degrees. Please read this extremely carefully since I have been editing US weather boxes for a while. I see nothing different from the 2 pages. Perhaps you're misinterpreting the weather box syntax in the editing box. The field "Jan record high F=", "Feb record high F=" and so on refer to the highest temperature recorded in the month. If you look at other major cities in USA and in Canada, the data that they put in is the record high, not the averages. The high temp averages goes under the field "Jan high F". Where you put these fields in the weather box when you are editing doesn't make a difference at all. Here is the example Ssbbplayer (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm planning to move this discussion to the talk page of that article. Ssbbplayer (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a 4th-generation Montanan and lived several winters in Missoula; I know it's not 66 degrees in January! My point is that the box is easy to misinterpret when you begin it with the record high temperatures. The point, is that the box needs to show the average temps first, then the extremes beneath them. I'm not arguing about the data, I'm taking issue with the layout, which is easy to misread and misleading. Montanabw(talk) 22:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Climate

I have recently edited the weather box in the last couple of days but it has been reverted twice in a row. I placed 2 weather boxes below, which contain the same data but with different positions of the parameters (eg. the record high fields goes after the normal low temps) to indicate whether it makes a difference or not. The first one is the original one before my edit while the second one is similar to the first one except that I moved the record high field to the top part and excess whitespace was removed. No data was changed in both versions and the sunshine data has been removed since it is not necessary in this discussion. Both of these have the same data before I made some minor changes to the data. This is to show whether this makes a difference or not based on the claim that "The problem is that placing the record highs first on the chart skews the numbers to make it appear that is the average" as mentioned by User:Montanabw in one of his/her edits. Ssbbplayer (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Climate data for Missoula, Montana (Missoula Airport), 1981–2010 normals
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year
Record high °F (°C) 60
(16) 		66
(19) 		78
(26) 		90
(32) 		95
(35) 		102
(39) 		107
(42) 		105
(41) 		99
(37) 		85
(29) 		73
(23) 		60
(16) 		107
(42)
Mean daily maximum °F (°C) 33.2
(0.7) 		38.8
(3.8) 		49.8
(9.9) 		58.5
(14.7) 		67.3
(19.6) 		75.2
(24.0) 		85.9
(29.9) 		84.9
(29.4) 		73.1
(22.8) 		57.8
(14.3) 		41.5
(5.3) 		31.0
(−0.6) 		58.1
(14.5)
Mean daily minimum °F (°C) 18.3
(−7.6) 		21.2
(−6.0) 		27.7
(−2.4) 		32.8
(0.4) 		39.8
(4.3) 		46.6
(8.1) 		51.4
(10.8) 		50.1
(10.1) 		41.8
(5.4) 		32.4
(0.2) 		24.9
(−3.9) 		16.7
(−8.5) 		33.6
(0.9)
Record low °F (°C) −33
(−36) 		−28
(−33) 		−13
(−25) 		2
(−17) 		21
(−6) 		26
(−3) 		25
(−4) 		25
(−4) 		15
(−9) 		−4
(−20) 		−23
(−31) 		−30
(−34) 		−33
(−36)
Average precipitation inches (mm) 0.84
(21) 		0.70
(18) 		0.99
(25) 		1.22
(31) 		2.00
(51) 		2.07
(53) 		0.99
(25) 		1.19
(30) 		1.17
(30) 		0.87
(22) 		1.01
(26) 		1.04
(26) 		14.09
(358)
Average snowfall inches (cm) 9.3
(24) 		6.5
(17) 		5.6
(14) 		1.3
(3.3) 		0.2
(0.51) 		0
(0) 		0
(0) 		0
(0) 		0
(0) 		0.6
(1.5) 		5.4
(14) 		10.7
(27) 		39.5
(100)
Average precipitation days (≥ 0.01 in) 11.8 9.4 11.4 11.1 12.3 12.1 7.1 7.5 8.2 8.4 11.1 12.3 122.7
Average snowy days (≥ 0.1 in) 9.4 6.9 5.2 1.7 0.3 0.1 0 0 0 0.9 5.3 9.7 39.5
Source: extremes (1893–2015): NOAA;[1][2]
Climate data for Missoula, Montana (Missoula Airport), 1981–2010 normals
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year
Record high °F (°C) 60
(16) 		66
(19) 		78
(26) 		90
(32) 		95
(35) 		102
(39) 		107
(42) 		105
(41) 		99
(37) 		85
(29) 		73
(23) 		60
(16) 		107
(42)
Mean daily maximum °F (°C) 33.2
(0.7) 		38.8
(3.8) 		49.8
(9.9) 		58.5
(14.7) 		67.3
(19.6) 		75.2
(24.0) 		85.9
(29.9) 		84.9
(29.4) 		73.1
(22.8) 		57.8
(14.3) 		41.5
(5.3) 		31.0
(−0.6) 		58.1
(14.5)
Mean daily minimum °F (°C) 18.3
(−7.6) 		21.2
(−6.0) 		27.7
(−2.4) 		32.8
(0.4) 		39.8
(4.3) 		46.6
(8.1) 		51.4
(10.8) 		50.1
(10.1) 		41.8
(5.4) 		32.4
(0.2) 		24.9
(−3.9) 		16.7
(−8.5) 		33.6
(0.9)
Record low °F (°C) −33
(−36) 		−28
(−33) 		−13
(−25) 		2
(−17) 		21
(−6) 		26
(−3) 		25
(−4) 		25
(−4) 		15
(−9) 		−4
(−20) 		−23
(−31) 		−30
(−34) 		−33
(−36)
Average precipitation inches (mm) 0.84
(21) 		0.70
(18) 		0.99
(25) 		1.22
(31) 		2.00
(51) 		2.07
(53) 		0.99
(25) 		1.19
(30) 		1.17
(30) 		0.87
(22) 		1.01
(26) 		1.04
(26) 		14.09
(358)
Average snowfall inches (cm) 9.3
(24) 		6.5
(17) 		5.6
(14) 		1.3
(3.3) 		0.2
(0.51) 		0
(0) 		0
(0) 		0
(0) 		0
(0) 		0.6
(1.5) 		5.4
(14) 		10.7
(27) 		39.5
(100)
Average precipitation days (≥ 0.01 in) 11.8 9.4 11.4 11.1 12.3 12.1 7.1 7.5 8.2 8.4 11.1 12.3 122.7
Average snowy days (≥ 0.1 in) 9.4 6.9 5.2 1.7 0.3 0.1 0 0 0 0.9 5.3 9.7 39.5
Source: extremes (1893–2015): NOAA;[1][2]


I think I didn't make my point clear. The averages originally topped the chart, with the record highs and lows beneath them. That is the way it should remain; putting the record high first looks bizarre, at first glance, it appears as if that's the average. I have no issues with cleaning up the chart or updating numbers, my problem was the first number being 66 degrees for January in Montana... the reader first looks for the averages, then the extremes, not extreme-average-exteme. I reverted to flip the chart back to its original order; I didn't change the numbers to the newer figures because I didn't want to deal with the formatting, which I would be apt to screw up. I hope this clarifies my concern. Montanabw(talk) 22:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concerns and I know the problem. I fixed this by putting the averages first with the record highs and lows beneath them by moving the record high fields. See this edit in which I put the averages first then the extremes. Although the formatting is a bit changed, I did that to remove excess whitespace. I normally place the syntax as extreme, averages, and extreme then the precipitation, humidity and sun info below them which is based on the Template: Weather Box page. This is because I normally add weather boxes by copying and pasting the parameters from the template's page which saves quite a lot of time. From what I know, if you want the template to display average temperatures at the top then the extreme high and lows, you have to edit the template itself which will require consensus. For the formatting, I usually don't do that much since it doesn't really make a difference to what the template displays from my experience with editing weather boxes. It will still be there with the correct numbers/conversion, colours. I hope this helps clear up any misunderstandings from both of us. Ssbbplayer (talk) 01:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Poop! So it's the whole dang template doing this everywhere? Not a battle I can fight. Has no one pointed out the obvious problem with this design??? If it's a template-level problem, I guess it's beyond the scope here. Sorry for my blowup; it IS helpful to have the averages first even if the template doesn't display that way, so thank you for that. Montanabw(talk) 22:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem.:) I am glad this issue had been resolved and that the climate data for the article is accurate for now (unless a new record is broken). Cheers. Ssbbplayer (talk) 22:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b "NowData: NOAA Online Weather Data". National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Retrieved 2015-08-08.
  2. ^ a b "July 2007 was a record setting month in terms of temperatures across western Montana and north central Idaho". National Weather Service. 2007-08-12. Retrieved 2007-09-09.

Perpendicular?

"(T)he Mullan Military Road, which ran perpendicular to the northern bank of the Clark Fork River. Through downtown Missoula, the route of the road is now Front Street."

Looking at a map, Front Street is parallel, not perpendicular. Is there some reason it's being called "perpendicular" that isn't obvious, or did the writer make a mistake on geometry?

Shawn D. (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Repaired[3] Thank you, Shawn D.! (Also, oops.) —LLarson (said & done) 16:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Missoula, Montana. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 06:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Missoula, Montana. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Missoula, Montana. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Missoula,_Montana