This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Horticulture and Gardening Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Horticulture and Gardening 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.Horticulture and GardeningWikipedia:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningTemplate:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningHorticulture and gardening Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Plants Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany 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.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

All 3 articles are stubs and overlap. Let's consolidate the info into a meaningful article. -- P199 13:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Merging 3 stubs into 1 actual article sounds like a good plan :) I'm hoping to add some content and several links, but I don't want to start until after they merge (If they merge). Doc Tropics 03:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I could imagine the article being cleaner after merging. Hey, Doc Tropics, I hope you (or someone else) will edit to note that The Arbor Day Foundation has again updated their map. "2006 arborday.org Hardiness Zone Map" Due to the implications in the climate change debate, the mid-December 2006 release gained coverage in the Washington Post, the New York Times, among other newspapers. Also, because this is clear, undeniable evidence of climate change, I believe it begs the question, why hasn't our federal government revised the map since 1990? "Harvard's Brief History of Hardiness Zone Maps"User:JohnBonitz 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Against - Those who are looking up this subject matter rather have relevant information to one section or region. Forcing the article to be "unified" defeats the purpose of the subject and weakens the benefits of wikipedia in general. This also smacks of anti-American bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.8.78.18 (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just thought I ought to introduce the "Cold Hardiness Zone Map of the British Isles" It's been around for many years now, but you evidently haven't seen it. The map you have for the UK is basic and only shows the 4 zones. It's sort of correct, but the British Isles is far more complex than that, which the "Cold Hardiness Zone Map of the British Isles" has done a lot to rectify. You may contact the administrator of the site for a flat image if you so wish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.178.81 (talk) 10:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the warming effect of the North Atlantic Drift on the British Isles, somehow the Shetland Islands and truly subtropical southern Alabama having the same hardiness zone did not seem right to me. Looking at the USDA hardiness zone map for southern Alabama, it shows it as mostly 8a (10-15° F average minimum), with the Mobile Bay area as 8b (15-20° F average minimum.) The US system is defined with Fahrenheit ranges and the UK system with Celsius ranges. Compare this to the Shetlands on the 8-9 boundary of the UK system, or approximately -7° C average minimum (19.4° F.) While the annual minimum temperature in the Shetlands is similar to Mobile Bay, the average winter temperature of the latter is greater due to greater daily ranges and higher daytime winter temperatures. Heff01 04:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The USDA updated the US Hardiness Zone map in 2003, it led to significant reclassifications in the the Deep South, including moving Atlanta, Charlotte, Birmingham and Memphis from Zone 7 to Zone 8. I cannot find a 2003 map that is from a source eligible to be uploaded to wikipedia. I have also searched for an Australian, NZ and South Africa hardiness zones map and found a few, but whereas the maps were from the respective Australian, NZ or South African government, I could not update them to Wikipedia in the same manner that the US Government publications are open source and eligible for publication here. Any Ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.132.88 (talk) 12:07, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Try this for Australian/NZ/SA hardiness zones: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heff01 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's apparently a discussion going on about merging some articles, I don't want to upset the apple cart. However, I would suggest that any new article contain a somewhat more fleshed-out reference to Sunset Climate Zones, also known as the Western Plant Climate Zones.

In the western US this system is used almost exclusively by gardeners. I'm a pretty avid gardener and have been for 30 years, and I had actually never even heard of the USDA's zones until about 2 years ago.

I would add something myself but as I say I'm not entirely clear on the status of the merge being discussed above. Thanks. Gilajones (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As is correctly stated in article, the US hardiness zone system, based on coldest winter temperatures, does not work well in northwestern Europe - Norway, Iceland, Faroe islands, partly also in Sweden, etc. In Norway and Sweden there is a different system based on both summer warmth and length and winter cold. These zones are named H1, H2 and so on to H8, and there is also a mountain zone, where gardening is more ore less pointless (unless using only arctic-alpine plants). H1 is the warmest, H8 and mountain zone the coldest. The latest map uses updated climate data. For instance, Malmø and Gothenburg and Karlskrona are all H1, Stockholm are mostly H2 as is Gotland island; Karlstad and Uppsala H3, Gävle H4, Umeå H5, Østersund H6 and Luleå at the H6-H7 border, Haparanda H7, Vilhelmina H8 and Kiruna in the mountain zone.

For Norway, Mandal, Stavanger and Bergen are H1, Kristiansand, Tønsberg and Ålesund are H2, Oslo (lowland near the fjord), Norheimsund in Hardangerfjord, Molde and parts of Hitra island are H3, Trondheim, Hamar and sheltered locations in Lofoten archipelago are H4, Lillehammer, Mosjøen and Fauske are H5, Harstad H5-H6 border, Lom, Mo i Rana and southern part of Senja island H6, Oppdal and Tromsø H7, Alta and Geilo H8, Røros and Karasjok in the mountain zone. As seen, the result is quite different from the US system. Oslo is here in a much milder zone than Tromsø (due to warmer, longer summer), and this is of course correct. Oak trees grow well in Oslo, but would strive to survive in Tromsø and grow very, very slow. As with all such system, the local microclimate can vary a lot depending on shelter or windy location, sun exposure or shadow, etc - even the same garden can have different microclimates.

Here are some examples for well known plants: The hardiness of European beech - Fagus sylvatica - is H4 (inland) and H5 (coast). Quercus robur is H5 (inland) and H6 (coast). Norway spruce is H8 and Blueberry grows well into the mountain zone. Taxus baccata is H4 (inland) and H5 (coast). Sequoiadendron giganteum is H3. Prunus persica is H2-H3. Apple trees (able to ripen fruit) varies from H3 to H5 (a few even nearly H6), and are commonly used in private gardens at least up to H4/H5 zone. Orcaborealis (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I have never heard about these H1–H8 zones being used in Sweden. Does that system have a name? Unless things have changed very recently, the only one in use among amateurs in Sweden is the one with the zones named I–VIII: [2]. I know it as created by Sveriges Pomologiska Förening, but there seem to have been name changes and mergers semi-recently, so it's now © Riksförbundet Svensk Trädgård (and bloody expensive to reproduce). JöG (talk) 22:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But my real point (and possibly Orcaborealis's too) is that it's not really helpful to have the article speak about zones in Scandinavia and implicitly use the US system. Might be mildly interesting to US citizens, but to the rest of us, statements like "Pajala is in zone 3" at best carries no information. JöG (talk) 22:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, the US system used in Scandinavia carries very little information, as summer warmth and length is very important in Scandinavia. And yes, I was referring to the same zones you linked to. In Norway, we use H and then number, but it seems only the number is used in Sweden, which you probably know quite well. My reference is the map produced by Det Norske Hageselskapet in Hageselskapets sortsliste (Media Øst, 2005, ISBN 82-994640-2-1).Orcaborealis (talk) 12:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of this system being used in the UK either. It may be used by professional horticulturalists and other specialists but the general public is completely unaware of it. I'm an amateur grower and haven't seen the concept used in books or online forums. --Ef80 (talk) 10:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is the same system in Sweden and Norway. A map for Norway here.Orcaborealis (talk) 07:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About Northern European heat zones: Why is Oslo listed as 1 and Stockholm listed as 2? Their summer daytime temperatures are very similar. Actually, the warmest month ever recorded in Scandinavia was July 1901 in Oslo, with a 24-hr mean of 22.7°C. Orcaborealis (talk) 14:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another factor which complicates the usage of Hardiness zones, particularly in Scandinavia, is snow cover. A plant, typically a perenial, might not survive -5°C in claysoil without snowcover, but survive -20°C in well drained soil as long as there is a good and stable snowcover. TorKr (talk) 10:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the article text, under Australian Hardiness Zones, appears the following:
"...Sydney residents can choose between Zones 3a and 4b."
The numbering of zones is stated to be based on an area's average annual minimum temperature in degrees Celsius.
Wikipedia's own article on Sydney clearly shows Sydney's mean minimum temperature as 13.8 degrees Celsius, far above -40 or -35 degrees. It's not even a simple use of degrees C instead of degrees F, because both scales are the same at -40. Should we need a discussion on the difference between mean and average, I would postulate the difference between the two is unlikely to be around the 54 Celsius degrees mark.
The article also alleges:
"As an example, Quebec City in Canada is located in zone 4 but can rely on an important snow cover every year, making it possible to cultivate plants normally rated for zones 5 or 6, whereas in Montreal, located in zone 5, it is sometimes difficult to cultivate plants adapted to the zone because of the unreliable snow cover."
According to http://www.australiasevereweather.com/links/temprec/sydney.htm Sydney's lowest minimum temperature since 1859, was 2.1 on June 22, 1932.
How can Quebec City, with an average January low of -17.6C, be in a higher rated zone than Sydney?
Is there some sort of misprint with the table?
If there is not, then the whole idea of Hardiness Zones, as described, seems pointlessly inaccurate.
What am I missing here? Or is the article a furphy?
Bigharps (talk) 05:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article. Quote: Australia numbers its climate zones differently but these can be made roughly equivalent to North American hardiness zones by adding an offset of 6. For example, Australian Zone 3 is roughly equivalent to North America Zone 9. The higher Australian zone numbers have no US equivalents. So Zone 3 in the Australian system is roughly equivalent to USDA zone 9.Orcaborealis (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still, Zones 9 and 10 are shown as having average minimum temps of -7C and -1C. Even with the offset of 6 positions, this does still not relate in any way to Sydney's average minimum of +13.8C. I can only assume this rating impractical for Australian conditions, except for the minuscule alpine areas ? Bigharps (talk) 05:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The cold-hardiness of plants depends on the temperatures that the plant has to survive during the winter. During the winter months, the typical daily minimum temperature in Sydney is around 5 or 6 degrees. Actual frost is quite uncommon in Sydney proper. I have no idea what that 13.8 C figure you are quoting is.Eregli bob (talk) 04:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The average minimum of 13.8 C you are quoting for Sydney, is obtained by taking the minimum temperature occuring on all of the 365 days of the year, and averaging them. So if the daily minimum is 20C in summer, and 14C in the spring and autumn, and 5C in the winter, if you average those over the whole year, you get 13.8 C. This is a completely different statistic to the average extreme low temperature which is the basis for the horticultural zones in North America. The typical winter daily minimum in Sydney is 5 or 6 C and the typical annual worst-case temperature is about 1 C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eregli bob (talk • contribs) 05:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I recently added Cardiff and Belfast to the European city list. I think their inclusion is warranted since they were two of the few European capital cities missing from the list. Someone has since came along and added 2 new Russian cities (which frankly I'd never heard of!!). Aside from not bothering to put them in alphabetical order (which I sorted out!), if everyone decided to add their local European city to the list, things are going to get out of hand! Therefore only capitals and cities notable due to their location or microclimate should be included. CrackDragon (talk) 02:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiff - has Wales become an independent nation? I believe the Russian cities are more relevant, as they illustrate the full range of climate for the continent. Orcaborealis (talk) 07:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland and England are all separate countries within the United Kingdom. That's why they all have their own international football and rugby teams. Even though other countries have semi-autonomous regions, none are as distinct in their own identity as the 4 countries that make up the UK. CrackDragon (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales are four separate countries, and I don't see why Edinburgh, London, Cardiff and Belfast shouldn't be on that list. Let's also include Braemar and Torquay to get the extremes.

Some thing that annoys me however is that unregistered users pop in and change zones at will, especially in Europe. Like, Amsterdam in 7? Hamburg in 6? If one uses cold records instead of the mean of the coldest days in a 20-30 year period that would be correct, but believe me, -17C in Amsterdam or -23 in Hamburg is far beyond the coldest one might expect in the average winter. Maybe an idea to make this page semi-protected? Clint.hotvedt (talk) 20:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is great that the USDA has made its own conception of plant hardiness zones in Canada, but the relevant source for Canadian zones is really planthardiness.gc.ca, from Natural Resources Canada. This exists only in a link at the bottom of the page, but it should be written about in the North American section of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.129.210 (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The North American Zone section states twice that it was updated by USDA in 2012. Following the links and crawling through the USDA website would indicate that the update was for the United States only. Provide a link to the complete 2012 updated North American zone data or indicate that the update was the United States only.Sandboo (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is an interactive version (uses google maps api) of the 1990 USDA plant hardiness zone map that may be a better reference for readers than the static version currently listed. There is also an interactive map for the UK and Ireland using USDA classifications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterusso (talk • contribs) 21:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the Boston hardiness zone to 6 (from 7), as per the USDA hardiness map at http://www.usna.usda.gov/Hardzone/hzm-ne1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.55.186 (talk) 03:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had never heard of the "Australian System" until I read this page. All the documentation I have seen uses the USDA system. I've modified the entry in the following way:

• Mention both systems.
• Link to ANBG article about Australian zones.
• Remove irrelevant reference to the dryness of the continent.
• Remove copy-and-paste of zone summaries from the ANBG article.

I also recall seeing another system again, based on the dryness or average top temperatures, and used in conjunction with the USDA system. I think Diggers Club uses it, but I can't find any reference to it offhand. Can anybody help? Groogle (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Average annual minimum temperature means what, exactly ? An average of the daily minimum temperature taken over all of the days of the year ? Or the minimum temperature of the coldest day of the year, averaged over a number of years ? Is this based on standard temperatures taken 1.6 metres above the ground level, or ground level temperatures ?Eregli bob (talk) 04:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answered my own question, they get the coldest temperature occuring on the coldest day of the year, and then average that number over at least ten years. So the average annual minimum temperature is the expected value of the coldest temperature you are likely to get in a year. Also, about half of the years, you will get something a bit colder.Eregli bob (talk) 05:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated USDA hardiness zones for a few cities in the "U.S. Cities hardiness zones" section with results directly from the USDA website (and more of them should probably be checked): http://planthardiness.ars.usda.gov/PHZMWeb/ 160.111.254.17 (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was dissapointed to find out there's a section on Northern and Central European zones, but nothing on southern european ones. Yet the Central european zones includes well known non-central places as Malaga and Madrid. How about a more generic heading, even if more info on certain areas is yet to appear? Mariannep (talk) 11:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

THERE IS NO WAY THAT LONGYEARBYEN IS IN A HIGHER NUMBER ZONE THAN MOSCOW WHEN MOSCOW IS WAY WARMER IN THE WINTER AND IN THE SUMMER. EITHER PUT LONGYEARBYEN AT 3 OR LEAVE IT AT 5 AND PUT MOSCOW AT 6. SORRY MOSCOW CAN GROW TROPICAL PLANTS A LOT BETTER THAN LONGYEARBYEN. THAT IS TRUE. IT'S DAMN TRUE.I LOWERED LONGYEARBYEN TO 4 UNTIL YOU DO THE ABOVE. MOSCOW'S WINTERS AND SUMMERS ARE WAY WAY WARMER THAN LONGYEARBYENS AND THUS PLANTS DO BETTER IN MOSCOW THAN LONGYEARBYEN.I WILL NOT LEAVE THIS ARTICLE UNTIL I GET MY WAY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.240.18 (talk) 21:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source? - SummerPhD (talk) 13:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The US hardiness zone system stops at 12b (55-60°F.) 13 is possible in the tropics, particularly small island locations. Heff01 (talk) 03:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The US system probably stopped at 12b because that is all that was needed for Hawaii and Puerto Rico. How about some more tropical remnant Pacific island possessions? Guam, American Samoa, etc. Heff01 (talk) 04:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to Singapore (a mere 1.3 degrees north of the equator) weather records the temperature has only been as low as 67°F, so that is a 13b at minimum, if not a 14a. 13 exists and 14 may even be possible! Heff01 (talk) 21:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the USDA hardiness map included and its range. It includes Puerto Rico, where coastal regions are 13a and a small area just east of San Juan is 13b! Heff01 (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore and the Maldives are 14a. Heff01 (talk) 04:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So are the islands of Kiribati close to the equator. Heff01 (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add Fort Yukon, Alaska, and International Falls, Minnesota, which have Zone 1a and 3a hardiness that no others on the list do. Barrow is included but it's actually warmer on the north coast of ak, making some of the several Alaska examples redundant. Barrow is small and northern mn is coldest in continental us. B137 (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to that picture that showed the difference in hardiness zones from the 1990 to 2012 Maps? It had shades of red and white and showed that much of the area moved up a half step. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B137 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article appears to contain much original research. In order to state that a particular place is in a particular zone, it must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. It's not acceptable to use sources that only give temperatures but not a specific hardiness zone, to determine the zone. For example, I see that Nabscrust and Average Portuguese Joe have recently been debating, in edit summaries, which zone Rome belongs in. It is not up to Wikipedia editors to determine this. The data must be based on a published, reliable source that specifically states the zone.

I have also removed the citations of unreliable sources from the "Selected European cities" section, for the reasons given in my edit summary: [3]. In almost all cases, the numbers in the table didn't match any of those sources anyway. Unless reliable sources can be found, this table should be deleted. --IamNotU (talk) 14:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey IamNotU (talk · contribs), the user Nabscrust is a sock of Weathertrustchannel and has multiple accounts vandalizing Italy related pages, he's blocked now. Some of the cities that were recently altered (until 29 June) are not really original research, I took the official average lowest temperature from historical values (usually last 20 years) on the German Meteorological Service website, you can find it here: https://opendata.dwd.de/climate_environment/CDC/ but still, cities like Rome don't appear on this website, having another website as a source is a bit unreliable as they all seem to differ. So I think the best think to do is to go by DwD if the station is in the city itself, if not then just go by comparison. I had a talk with another user regarding this for spanish cities and it's in my talk page if you'd like to read it. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Average Portuguese Joe, thanks for letting me know about the other user. I do appreciate the work you've done to help improve the article, but the original research policy, specifically the section on synthesis, is quite clear: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Using the German Meteorological Service source, which gives temperatures but doesn't mention hardiness zones, combined with another source that gives a definition of hardiness zone temperature ranges but doesn't mention specific places, in order to reach a conclusion that place X is in zone Y, does exactly that. Although the conclusion may seem obvious, it's not allowed, because users must be able to verify the conclusion in a source that has explicitly published the hardiness zone values, as is the case for the North American data for example. Editors may make only very basic calculations; this goes far beyond that. Considering the explanation you've given above, and on your user talk page, about how you (and others) have calculated (and debated) the zones for each European city yourself, I'm going to remove the table as original research. Sorry about that. --IamNotU (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are some instances in this article where I think it's best to use multiple sources than just one, this could be achieved by using the most common zone to a specific region in these five maps I'm going to share. This would not only put all the zones in the same time period but would also give it more credibility.

First are these maps published by the Biota of North America Program:

"Hardiness Zone Map of the World recreated from these sources: Daly, C., Halbleib, M., Smith, J.I., Gibson, W.P., Doggett, M.K., Taylor, G.H., Curtis, J., and Pasteris, P.A. 2008. Physiographically-sensitive mapping of temperature and precipitation across the conterminous United States. International Journal of Climatology, 28: 2031-2064. (http://prism.oregonstate.edu/normals/) Daly, C., Widrlechner, M.P., Halbleib, M.D., Smith, J.I. and Gibson, W.P., 2012. Development of a new USDA plant hardiness zone map for the United States. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 51(2), pp.242-264. Hijmans, R.J., S.E. Cameron, J.L. Parra, P.G. Jones and A. Jarvis, 2005. Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. International Journal of Climatology 25: 1965-1978. (http://www.worldclim.org/version1) Magarey, R.D., Borchert, D.M. and Schlegel, J.W., 2008. Global plant hardiness zones for phytosanitary risk analysis. Scientia Agricola, 65(SPE), pp.54-59.

[4] Derived from WorldClim using this equation: Annual Minimum = -9.58 + 1.25*Coldest Month Average Daily Low + -0.052*Latitude + 0.000343*Elevation

[5] Combined sources of Magarey, Borchert, Schlegel (2008) and Daly et al (2012). Rendered with WorldClim grid layers, corrected by plotting residuals to match source maps."

The third map is a map from this article [6]

The fourth map from this article [7]

And the fifth from this image at the right which I don't know the article:

All of these maps are different and were the only ones I could find. I want to know your opinion about using these five maps as a possible source. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Average Portuguese Joe: Where do you want to use them? I see all of these 4 maps differ enormously. One of them for example says that nowhere in Europe have average lows above 0ºC (that's not even Hardiness) except for SE Sicily which is not even the mildest part of Sicily. The only map I see here in Wikipedia is the one you have posted, yet it's too ambiguous given the fact it's done in an extremely large scale, 1:170.000.000 in a barely 2000px map. On a side note, unrelated to this but related to something we have talked, that map shows 11 areas in SW Spain as well as in the southernmost coast of Spain from Málaga to Almería. I see it also shows a bit around Sagres. That's accurate there, but for example it shows all of coastal western Italy as Zone 10 which is very inaccurate, neither Livorno nor Rome are 10. It shows Messina as Zone 9 when it has the warmest winters in Italy and it's 10b/11a. It also shows Valencia in Zone 9 but Barcelona in Zone 10. I assume there are many more mistakes in other parts of the world as well, but I'm sticking to the areas where I know about their climate.

It would be good on the lead as a summary, but for countries and regions it's better to use the sources which are purposely done for a specific region/country. --TechnicianGB (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly why you should rely on various sources and not just one.

Just to be clear all these maps are explicitly hardiness zones and I don't think they differ that much at all.

Looking at Europe we can conclude by these 5 maps that there is zone 10 certainly around the southwest Iberian Peninsula, Sicily and maybe around some coastlines on Mediterranean islands, southern mainland Italy, southern Greece and southern Turkey. You can also compare these maps with the USDA one [8].

I'm not disregarding other research for specific countries, but if all of these five maps contradict it I think it's safe to say it's not entirely correct. Keep in mind these are made by researchers, you are not going to contradict five journals with a map made by a guy named Billy Bob.

I would also like to follow the USDA map and disregard UHI zones. Most stations labelled as 11 in that Spain source are a clear case of UHI. Most of the sources deny the existence of any zone 11 in Europe, except for the commons one which puts the coastline from Sines to Gibraltar, southwest Sicily and southwest Greece, and one which puts southern Sicily. After all, what's published on Wikipedia should be what's most agreedable upon researchers.

In summary, I think they should be used to contradict other sources (e.g. Cyprus is clearly not 11 as it's written in the article). Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 14:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Average Portuguese Joe: Do you realize they also contradict your Portuguese source right? Just as it's laugheable to see the first 2 maps (they come from a Facebook post, that says it all) that all of the southern half of Portugal is Zone 10 including very inland areas, just as inland western Spain, while these areas are 8b/9a mostly and 9b at most, just as the better sources say. That map is literally saying that Beja or Badajoz are Zone 10 while it puts much warmer zones in Zone 9, and that's just talking about the climates I know about, because I can take a look at other places of the world which I know something, for example they put most of coastal SoCal between Zone 8 and Zone 9 while they put San Francisco (a strong 10b area due to the upwelling) in the same color pattern as Sacramento? And they put Beja on Zone 10? It's laugheable. That's why maps shouldn't be taken as the best sources and much less ones in such an enormous scale, the resolution is neither too good as you have to make a 500x zoom to see something and it's all pixels.

In overall they're extremely big large scale maps thus are very inaccurate. Just as they differ a lot from one to another. They would have been useful in large scale, if there weren't more specifical works/studies but there are actual sources on the Hardiness Zone page that are much better and made for specifical areas/regions/countries, and they're not made by "Billy" but compiled from official data. That's much more prevalent and better as a source, not big scale maps which would never be precise, the Commons archive is good to be on the lead on the page (I will insert it) but the rest as I said before, maybe it's good to put one of them in the lead (not by far the 1st or 2nd ones, which are not exactly hardiness and they're inaccurate gibberish) but shall never be used for specifical regions which already have their own data, such as many of the countries listed in the page already. And don't stick just to maps, sources with factual data and numbers are better than maps, as data from specific stations is more useful and reliable.

And now as a side note, unrelated to all of this but a reply to the last thing you wrote, I see that the Commons image shows a little 11a area in Sines, from Sagres to Lago, but then it doesn't show more 11a until Cadiz-Tarifa (where it ends) and then a small stretch from Malaga-Almeria (there's no UHI in Almuñecar or Motril and other small towns) this is exactly what the better sources show, just as the map, but it's better to have actual data than maps alone. The mildest part of Sicily is for example NW Sicily (Messina) and not SW... Just as there are also small 11a areas in Greece, in coastal Crete and smaller southern islands. Malta and Lampedusa are also 11a clearly. So yes, 11a areas in Europe are very marginal, but they still do exist. --TechnicianGB (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There you go again with the assumptions, there are five different very well suported sources and you're still contradicting them somehow. The only zone 11 in the commons map present in Spain is the one from Ayamonte in the border to the Cádiz region (interrupted by the Doñana park) and a tiny microscopic bit in Cabo de Gata-Níjar. There's a clear zone 11 in the Alentejo coast and the Algarve it's almost entirely black. This has nothing to do with my question, but stick to the facts.

It's obvious they contradict the Portuguese article, as it was done with averages from the 20th century. It's funny you say Beja is not 10 when even the Portuguese source agrees with it, meanwhile your source says Murcia is 10, but you don't seem to speak about it.

Enough of this, It's evident you will try to defend your single source from all the data there is opposing to it. I want to know the opinion of other editors. For the other editors that may be reading this, do you agree that these maps should be used? Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 02:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Average Portuguese Joe: This is not about me and you nor your personal assumptions on which sources are reliable or not, at the end as a side note I'll also refer to that, but now let's just refer to the sources you've posted with factual proofs and examples.

After having time to deeply check all of these maps and sources, the following conclusion has been made. Not that only they're too inaccurate (examples below), is that they don't even show actual USDA Hardiness Zones.

1.[9] Doesn't show any USDA zone but it varies from 5 to 5 celsius.

2.[10] Same example as above, no USDA zones at all. Explanation below.

These aren't Hardiness maps, as they both show temperatures that go from 5 to 5 celsius, for example the -4.9999 to 0 one comprises 3 Hardiness Zones (9a, 9b, 10a) just as the 0 to 4.9999 one comprises 10a, 10b and 11a. Same with all of the other parameters.

They put on the same level (can't call it Hardiness as they're not USDA zones) Catania as Fuerteventura, the latter having a borderline tropical climate and the first one recording temps under 0ºC every winter. The difference is extreme.

They put on the same level Cyprus as Central France which well, is nothing but laugheable. As well as San Francisco and Sacramento but this is not even as exaggerate as comparing Sicily to the Canary Islands.

Sources should include a detailed work, not big scale maps. Then the other 2 sources include very small images (the Brazilian site uses a 600px image for the entire world, just pixels are seen after doing a bit of zoom) and the 2nd one is actually talking about some pest control, it does have some kind of map which again is way too small and too broad and inaccurate. The only one that comes closer to reality is the one hosted in Wikipedia Commons, a map which has been already added in the article.

The Internet is full of hardiness maps such as these ones, in fact all of these 4 maps change a lot from one to another one (for example the 3rd map that's showing SW Iberia as Zone 10, then the 2nd map shows the same area between -5/0 -9a to 10a- and it shows coastal Galicia between -5/-10 (it puts La Coruña or Porto in 8a/9a zones, the same as the much, much colder Salamanca) while the lowest temp recorded in the history of Coruña has been -3.0ºC, in Porto -4.1 and Salamanca -20.0 and in the 2nd map they're all in the same orange zone, funny huh? Without even considering the real fact that in the 2nd map there's also the comparison between Sicily and Fuerteventura, Cyprus and France, or even showing Montpellier and Monaco on the same orange zone, the latter being much milder by miles away, just look at their average lows and records. The same orange zone where they put Porto and Salamanca. This is to put some examples, as they're many more off-world examples shown on that map for many other places.

Heck, in fact the 2nd map shows an area of southern Cyprus labelled as yellow, which means the same area as Berlin. How can you even want to replace such kind of source (which is only a map, obviously way too inaccurate) with actual real reliable data?

These maps are heavily inaccurate and they're extreme WP:Unreliable sources just as the examples mentioned above. They could be only accepted if 1. there weren't any sources (and there are many) and 2. Commons already offers a better version of a worldwide map. Again, a worldwide map can never replace entire reliable works done for specifical areas. This is not something where maps are the main factor, but it's better to have sources that show factual data and stations, such as the article has already.

Now on a side node, as clearly shown from the words in your last edit and looking at the last edits you've done on the main Hardiness page, this whole thing, just as expected, is not to "improve the veracity of the article" but on your personal assumptions and persistence of deleting a single phrase regarding Spain's 11a hardiness zones that's written in the main page, trying to discredit a professional work done by well-known Engineer with official INM (AEMET) data, while you try to replace that professional work with some user-made maps hosted in Facebook (that are clearly unreliable, as they don't come even close to the Wikipedia Commons file for example, or stick to the examples I've put above) the maps you have posted can't be used as there are superior reliable sources as per WP:Reliable source you want to put some low resolution maps with a scale of hundreds of millions to 1 instead of using specific sources that come for each region/country just because you have a personal problem regarding one single source.

Now please stick to improve the article rather than exposing your personal assumptions saying which sources are reliable or not, as you've just proved your real intention on this topic. It would be understandeable if it was a low quality source, but that's not the case.

And works/publications that include real data are better than the maps themselves, which have been proved to not to be that accurate. To name two examples, the Portuguese or the Spanish sources include this type of specifical data, not only maps alone.

I don't disregard the usage of these maps (although they differ a lot from one to another, the Commons one is the only one that somewhat resembles reality) after looking again at the whole article, most regions/countries are represented by specific works/sources/articles made about these specific places, not like a 200.000.000/1 map can replace such sources. A simple map can't replace specific works with higher authoritative reliable sources. The Commons one is enough for the lead. --TechnicianGB (talk) 14:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This did not fit in the edit summary, so putting it here. Selected cities do not need to be sorted for size, or importance, nor do they need to be the biggest cities in the region. Furthermore, cities' zones should not consist of one central station, as that poses significant consistency issues with the US section. Rather, zones based on urban area should be preferred. Uness232 (talk) 09:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Uness232: please respect the WP:CYCLE before reverting again and wait for more editors to hear their opinions. Also European Hardiness can't be compared with US hardiness at all. You have reverted everything which took time to edit, including the insertion of additional missing places or the proper zones based on the actual sources. Then why we need a source if we don't respect what the same source says in their list? --47.60.49.21 (talk) 11:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with the other user who edited the page yesterday, some countries have too many examples and other ones too few. Spain had 8 or 9 examples, before my last edit 6 but I deleted another one because with 5 is more than enough. Then Portugal had just 1 city and I added Porto and Funchal but you deleted my changes while this for example is really adding useful information in the article. --47.60.49.21 (talk) 11:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lot of stuff, so I'll go through them one at a time.

Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle states when someone makes a bold edit, the next action is to revert. My edit, which was made a long time ago, had silent consensus, however your edit did not. Therefore your action is considered re-reverting, which is not cycle-compliant: we should have discussed and reached a consensus first. The cycle isn't bold, discuss, revert for a reason.

Secondly, I agree with Average Portuguese Joe completely, and to be clear I only sourced the chart, I did not populate the chart with cities. I did not oppose any of their edits, except one in which they replaced sourced material with unsourced material.

"European Hardiness can't be compared with US hardiness at all." I'm not exactly sure of what you meant by this, but what I meant was that the tables should be presenting info of the same format. The US chart shows hardiness zones not just for a single downtown station, but for the entire city limits. I simply replicated that in the European section. I did respect the sources, but did not just copy the single station based data, rather the data from the rest of the urban area as well.

"You have reverted everything which took time to edit, including the insertion of additional missing places." Time spent is always appreciated, however it does not mean that your edit will not be reverted. On the missing places, Average Portuguese Joe said that there needed to be more Eastern European cities. What I saw from you wasn't that, rather the places you added were all in Western Europe, and I did not see them as more 'important'. I reverted them all as I thought that they were unnecessary and I thought that the change of data was damaging. I will revert one last time, and we should wait and reach a consensus before making another edit. Uness232 (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits were left untouched because you added a chart and some changes that don't require any kind of consensus like in this case with my edits. Not everything edited in Wikipedia needs a consensus first. Also things from your chart were later modified by some other editors and you didn't revert anyone except my edits from this morning.

Too many Western European cities? Add Eastern ones then. There aren't too many Western ones, whoever added the chart inserted there 9 Spanish cities which are too much, that's why half of them got wiped, that's why I deleted 3 of them and I only replaced one of these with a much more important city in all ways, not only because of its size. But for example what's the problem by letting Portugal with 3 instead of just a single one?

These were my edits together with putting the capital cities first and then the other cities at the bottom of the chart. This is not obliged I know, but the chart looks cleaner. Not sure what consensus you want to reach if I only fixed some Hardiness Zones according to each of their sources, removed a Spanish city, added 2 Portuguese cities and I made a better order. These are all my changes, after all it's not even a significant change, I didn't modify the whole chart or something. Also this is an edit war between me and you and not exactly a consensus thing when you're the one reverting my changes. In that case let other people take action before you revert again. --47.60.49.21 (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy states that when you make an edit and I don't like it, I can revert it. If you don't agree with the revert we discuss. That is it. It was my bad to revert your edits on Funchal and Porto. However, as I'll say again, your other changes look either needless or outright damaging to me, and we need to establish consensus on them. I have already explained my reasons, but I'll say it again. Putting capitals earlier does not help with anything and if it does anything, it makes the semi-alphabetical list even less alphabetical, making it harder to read. The zone changes you made make the page less consistent, as I've stated, I have used the entire urban area for those zones, the same way the US chart has.

I would be very happy if another editor stepped in, reverted the changes for now per Wikipedia:CYCLE and helped solve this, I have run out of allowed reverts per Wikipedia:3RR. Uness232 (talk) 16:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Uness232: in case if you didn't notice, I have improved as well the alphabetical order of the listed cities just as I said in one of my edit summaries.

I said the US Hardiness Zones can't be compared at all with the European cities because each US city has a big urban/sprawl area that many times includes several nearby cities and that doesn't happen in Europe unless if you talk about greater metropolitan areas. --47.60.49.21 (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for that as well, I reacted quickly and did not notice that you kept alphabetical order in mind. But I will still contest that second point of yours, as this land cover viewer would show that what you said in the last paragraph is wrong, as European cities do have some pretty significant urban sprawl outside of city borders. I am okay with all of your changes other than that, and I apologize for all my other reverts. That was me rushing to judgement and being wrapped up in the debate. I would still be happy if you would revert to the older zone classifications however, or if you oppose that I would be happy to discuss further. Uness232 (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good, no problem and thanks for understanding after checking it again. Ok, which cities do you want to change as they were before? Some of them or all of them? It's because I checked the maps of all of my changes and while some cities can have 2 zones if we take account all their entire urban areas, some others don't because the another hardiness zone is already at a significant distance or not exactly inside of the city's urban area. --47.60.49.21 (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that I have made a mistake even if the entire urban area is taken into account, any change is welcome. In maps with lower resolutions I tried to be more liberal when classifying (as some maps do not correct for elevation, I included nearby tiles in places corresponding to the urban area on the streetmap, but not according to the stations they were interpolated from). If you prefer the opposite approach as well, that is still fine by me, however changes should reflect, in some way, the urban area, for consistency purposes. Uness232 (talk) 19:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This section has been disputed since its introduction in this page and the entire paragraph didn't have any source, the unsourced tag was added in September 2020 and in 9 months no one has added any source and several users have been complaining about this section. It definetly gets deleted unless if it gets better veracity backed up by sources. I recall the recent edits of @Uness232: (along with other users in the past) but this is the most recent dispute, and I support his point of view, also "Macaronesia" is only the name of an archipielago, it's not an official region. Even the Cape Verde islands are included in Macaronesia, and that's an African country so this definition has clear leaks. There isn't even a Wikipedia page for European Macaronesia because such a "region" doesn't exist.

The Canary Islands and Madeira are entirely based in Africa (tectonic plates) while the Azores are mixed up between the European/Eurasian and the American plates, but they're still way too far from continental Europe. Macaronesia doesn't form a continent or a part of Europe, at least officially, so Madeira and the Canaries should be added in Africa and Azores are a mixture. This section needs proper sources and in any case it shouldn't be included in the European section. Because in that case, we also need to start including all European overseas territories because officially, Azores, Madeira and the Canaries are Outermost regions of the European Union because they're not located in Europe, unlike the Balearic Islands, for example. --TechnicianGB (talk) 13:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I wouldn't remove anything before I had reach consensus. I'm unaware of any dispute on this section. Where do you want to include this geographical region? Just like the United States includes Hawaii, I think the best option is to include the Azores, Canaries and Madeira in the "European hardiness zones" section, whether it would be in its own subsection (as it was before) or in the "Southern Europe" section, because, after all they are part of Portugal, Spain and the European Union. Heck even French Guiana should be included in Europe. The location doesn't matter. Maybe instead of "Europe" we could call it "European countries"? or put a disclaimer that this also includes territories that are outside geographical Europe. Continental plate is not an excuse to exclude those places from Europe, Sicily, or Malta are on the African Plate. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 16:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Average Portuguese Joe: No, put a strong reason and show at least minimally valuable sources to keep that section, it had the unsourced tag since September 2020 and with such a tag you can delete something in few months, we've waited 9 months so it's more than enough. Also the section was already controversial, and examples with other European places don't belong there as these places are not in Europe. It's obvious Tenerife is much warmer than anywhere in Europe, but it's Africa, not Europe.

Please let me remind you that "European Macaronesia" doesn't exist as anything official, because Macaronesia is an archipelago which goes from the Azores all the way down to Cape Verde, crossing through 3 different tectonic plates. This geographical region shouldn't be included anywhere because "European Macaronesia" doesn't exist, they're Special member state territories of the European Union and in that case we should also include other African and even Caribbean places with the same EU status such as La Réunion or Martinique and other places. They're not in Macaronesia, but they have the same legal status. In any case, if you want to include the Azores, Madeira, Canary Islands and so on, do it for their respective geographically places, which is mainly Africa.

The examples of Malta or Sicly being not geographically in Europe are not exactly valid because they're much closer to mainland Europe and they're fully incorporated European Union islands or member states. But anyways, this controversial section got deleted because it had the unsourced tag for more than 9 months and no one provided any source. Please refrain for adding it back again before at least reaching a consensus and finding useful sources. Thanks. --TechnicianGB (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well I tried to reach a conclusion but, again, since you don't seem to have any answer for that I will include Macaronesia in its own section with proper sources. Its funny you say its unsourced when there is literally your prized source in there, but there shouldn't be any problem now, right? Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Average Portuguese Joe: Sorry but what are you saying there? You're the one who needed to provide answers, also it's not me who added the "unreferenced" tag in September 2020 and it wasn't me the one who claimed that part of the page was inaccurate, and it has been edited as I see by more than one user, but whatever. Fair enough you've splitted it up in a different Macaronesia area, it's ok now. And nope, there wasn't any single source before, just a invalid refname which you corrected in one of your last edits made yesterday, because before yesterday, it was just that incorrect refname. I will add Cape Verde as well, because it's Macaronesia. And I will research about a couple of phrases which don't seem too accurate, but I will research first. --TechnicianGB (talk) 00:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TechnicianGB (talk · contribs) claims I am "nitpicking" areas part of zone 11. Lets be clear, zone 11 is clearly different from any other zone in Europe, it is much more uncommon and it's even controversial to say that there are regions part of zone 11 in Europe, so if there is evidence of any, they should be described with detail, and not as "some areas in southern Spain", as the truth is, many of these so called "areas" are in fact populated centers (a.k.a UHI), but that is a whole 'nother subject. The point I am trying to make is, there is no "nitpicking" excuse when it comes to zone 11 in Europe. There is no global support for this zone to even exist in Europe. I await the answer of a third party. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Average Portuguese Joe: Check my last edit on the page, it's what you wrote but with a very small change. If it's ok now, then you can delete this section. I've also left you a message on your talk page. --TechnicianGB (talk) 02:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all I have reinstated Kasos reference. I noticed it was removed under the assumption the reference is from a blog. Meteoclub.gr is met website (not a blog), one of the most respectable in Greece. Please do not revert again.Weatherextremes (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Weatherextremes: as pointed out by @Average Portuguese Joe: first of all, Hardiness Zones aren't taken by 7 years of data. Second but not last, the data of your source is not official HNMS data and third, meteoclub.gr is not an official website neither is using official data, as in that page the source is simple bold text and not links like in other meteoclub pages. That's an unreliable source. Period. It's also a blog entry made by an user as that site can contain blog entries by anyone registered, just as Wikipedia. Please stop adding that unreliable and unofficial source. If you further continue doing this I will have to warn an administrator, I have warned you before and in an admin's talk page and you don't care at all.

Even in fact, the TOS and "who we are" page of meteoclub.gr are the following: https://www.meteoclub.gr/poioi-eimaste The website was created on March 24, 2007 through a love for the weather and meteorology. The purpose of the website was and is to unite the amateur meteorologists of Greece in a website, where they will share in real time their thoughts, feelings, reports and weather forecasts / estimates. so the website itself says it's a place where people can share, a blog entry made by someone with no substantiated sources is not allowed on Wikipedia. A self-made or user-made blog entry (doesn't matter if it's a blog or not, it's still self-made) is not a Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Please read the rules about reliable sources. --TechnicianGB (talk) 16:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please, the particular article has a proper reference list. In fact it references HNMS data department (google translate it). The source is not a blog as it is clearly mentioned in the description but a website. A reliable source has proper references as has this article.I understand that you might not like the reality of official data but this is not a reason to call a properly referenced article in website as a blog Weatherextremes (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Weatherextremes: I would strongly encourage you to see Wikipedia:Terms of Use writing something random in a talk page doesn't give you the right to re-add again something reverted without WP:Consensus then, no matter how much you'd repeat it, meteoclub.gr is an amateur website where users can post anything as stated in their own "who we are" page, the Kasos reference is not official and it's not backed up by anything as in the "sources" text of the page there is just some bold text.

And again, 7 years of data (even if it was reliable, which is not) are not enough for a Hardiness Zone. There isn't any HNMS or NOA source saying Kasos is 11b and only "meteoclub" says it in a blog entry made by an user. The website is not a blog, but it does have blog entries, it even says it by itself at the bottom of the page. Please stop already and respect the rules. Wait for consensus. --TechnicianGB (talk) 16:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree with TechnicianGB (talk · contribs) here. Without getting into the blog discussion, 7 years is definitely not enough for hardiness zones. Also, there are much better sources on this page for you to add Kasos with, if necessary. I wouldn't mind if there was no better source, but frankly there are two, I believe. Uness232 (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An easy way to settle this would be to create a public email account and order the HNMS data for Kasos in order to have the extra verification. The HNMS data on Kasos covers 33 years of data worth. In any case that should be done in case there is consensus Meteoclub and more particularly this article is for some reason not reliable. Like I said many Greek scientists participate in Meteoclub and I understand that many users might not be aware of this as they are not a part of the Greek met community. Weatherextremes (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any attempt to use hardiness zone data from meteoclub.gr is is up against both WP:SPS and WP:SYN. We would need to see a normal WP:Reliable source saying that 'Kasos is in hardiness zone XX'. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having been a member of the Greek met community for years the consensus among the community is that it is a reliable source. Articles are written properly referenced and can be independently verified. Regarding the description of the website itself here [11] sharing thoughts etc is meant for all users regarding the chat facility which you might have missed [12]. Articles are submitted through a specific portal [13] and admins choose which of them merit a publication. Moving now to the content dispute itself the Meteoclub article cites the HNMS data departement and publishes the data provided by HNMS itself on Kasos for a period of 33 years which is more than enough for any location to determine their hardiness zone. On top of that I also have the email from HNMS on Kasos's data and this is why I propose the creation of a public email account so everyone can see for themselves the data cited in Meteoclub as an extra layer of verification. More importantly the Gkouvas (2012) equation is placing Kasos in zone 11b as cited in Meteoclub. I strongly urge you to google translate the entire article and read the relevant bits. Here is an extract in Greek:

η Κάσος εμπίπτει στη ζώνη 11b, σύμφωνα με την εξίσωση του Γκουβά (2012)

The above translates roughly that using the Gkouvas (2012) equation, which is specially created for Greece's hardiness zones, Kasos is placed at zone 11b.

And here is the reference list in Greek from that article

ΠΗΓΕΣ

Ε.Μ.Υ - ΔΝΣΗ ΠΑΡΟΧΗΣ ΥΠΗΡΕΣΙΩN

Κλιματικές ζώνες ανθεκτικότητας φυτών της Ελλάδας (Inforest/ Γκουβάς, 2012) Weatherextremes (talk) 08:40, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see an explanation for this. Looked at the table in the European section. 37.76.57.249 (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See here. Uness232 (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Heff01 I am wondering how long you would like the list to be. Right now, it is a fair bit longer than the European list and in my opinion, your constant additions are causing it become unwieldy and unproductive. Uness232 (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say (not much longer) but I want enough populous metro areas and less-populated cities that are hundreds of miles from other examples. I have the new USDA map at my fingertips so that makes it much more accessible to look up accurately than the European cities. Heff01 (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair; I am a little concerned about its length though. Any more than 10 more cities added from now is, I think, overkill. It is important to note that just like us, readers also have the map at their fingertips. Uness232 (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The funny thing is that every time that I thought that there might be enough cities, more popped up in my head. I do not mean to get carried away. Heff01 (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]