NewsAndEventsGuy (talk | contribs) →Renaming discussion launched for climate change: prelim discussion over, formal proposal is now live |
|||
Line 316: | Line 316: | ||
Our current article [[climate change]] is not about global warming/climate change, but instead about climate changes in general. I've proposed a renaming, so that climate change can redirect to global warming. Input is very much welcome. The discussion is on the [[Talk:climate change#Renaming this article to solve confusion|climate change talk page]]. [[User:Femkemilene|Femke Nijsse]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 20:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC) |
Our current article [[climate change]] is not about global warming/climate change, but instead about climate changes in general. I've proposed a renaming, so that climate change can redirect to global warming. Input is very much welcome. The discussion is on the [[Talk:climate change#Renaming this article to solve confusion|climate change talk page]]. [[User:Femkemilene|Femke Nijsse]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 20:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC) |
||
{{Archive bottom}} |
{{Archive bottom}} |
||
=== Prelim discussion is over... "formal" rename proposal is pending === |
|||
FYI, see note at top of [[Climate change]] about renaming the article [[Climate change (general concept)]]. There is a link to the formal rename proposal in that template. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy|talk]]) 15:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Nomination of Wikimedia community for award == |
== Nomination of Wikimedia community for award == |
Revision as of 15:24, 18 October 2019
Main | Participants | Popular articles | Recommended sources | Style guide | Get started with easy edits | Talk |
Environment Project‑class | |||||||
|
Climate change NA‑class High‑importance | |||||||||||||
|
African Climate Change workshop
Hello everyone. I want to let everyone know of and invite project volunteers help out with (should you be interested) in the African Climate Change workshop and edit-a-thon that Wikimedia ZA and South South North will be running from the 6-8 August 2019. The event seeks to introduce around 40 climate change experts to editing Wikipedia with a specific focus on adding to the topic of climate change articles on Wikipedia. A focus, although not an exclusive one, will be on climate change in Africa. More information can be found on the event page on meta here. --Discott (talk) 13:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing this! I might be willing to volunteer, but not sure how much time I've got. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Same. Do I need to do anything to be "known" to organizers/participants as a Wikipedia-process resource? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Femkemilene and NewsAndEventsGuy, I fully understand. Its a long running event basically covering almost the whole day for three days running in a timezone that might not align with everyone so I dont expect anyone to commit for the ful period (except myself of course). As for being "known", very good question. Let me create a signup section on the meta page for people sign up and make them selves known as volunteers. Will that work?--Discott (talk) 14:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Sure. Recruiting people who know a little about climate is a lot easier than keeping the good ones long enough to become skilled at Wikipedia also. The rules and disputes turn a lot of people away. If I can help folks make peace with those obstacles, I'd be glad to help. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- I agree entirely, that's why one of the focus points of the workshop will be on how to avoid conflicts and how to deal with them should they happen. Hopefully that, along with some followup mentoring, will encourage participants to stick around on Wikipedia long enough to learn the community's culture and become part of it fully.--Discott (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Possible idea.... I recommend a face-to-face exercise, where participants pair off, and share opinions of favorite color or food intentionally looking for something touchy they strongly disagree about (e.g., I detest cooked ocra). Then spend time asking and listening to the other person describe why they like/hate that thing. Finally, Person A describes Person B's viewpoint without injecting Person A's own opinion to negate that of Person B. The test, of course, is when Person B agrees Person A did fair and respectful job. If participants can do this with non-emotional things face-to-face, try again with a hot topic of sex/religion/politics. If they learn to do that in the workshop, they will be well-prepared to handle online conflict editing hot topics on Wikipedia. See the box at the top of my user talk for more. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- That sounds like a very good exercise. It encourages both to think in NPOV terms and how to summarise things accurately. Two very important Wikipedia skills.--Discott (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hello everyone, as I write this the workshop's 2nd day has started. Yesterday we worked on introducing the participants to editing Wikipedia for the first time by adding references. We have also covered most of the most important Wikipedia 'editing culture' issues (like NPOV, Be Bold). So far the focus as been on only 3 articles (most notably Climate Change in Africa) but we intend (for today and tomorrow) to start expanding that to a few other Africa related climate change articles. People have now broken into groups to focus on certain categories of climate change articles (which will likely reduce online activity a bit). Categories are: Dry lands, Climate change and agriculture, Climate change in Africa, Climate change adaptation, and one table for people to do their own thing. So if you see lots of activity from new editors on Africa related Climate change it will likely be from the participants. I am coaching them through it but there are a lot of them (about 40) so I am sure a few new editor type mistakes will happen. Please be nice to them. I will try and make a participant badge for each username involved when I get a chance today but so far I have not created one. Thanks, --Discott (talk) 09:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- This is really cool, I noticed some of your activity yesterday. I hope no one was upset when I reverted the (very) few honest mistakes! Thanks for doing the project. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm helping out today and we'll create an African-specific task force as sub-page, keeping tabs on tasks, members, and todos. The upstream project can deliberate with the project members how to organise this long-term YaguraStation (talk) 12:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- How awesome is that?? Thanks! Welcome! We have not completed the conversion from the old "task force" to the new "project". This impacts the Climate change/Africa task force in a one significant housekeeping way.... First, we have not completed an inventory of all the old categories, userboxes, bots, templates, and banners during our days as Project Environment/Climate change task force. Second, we have not yet learned enough about all that to understand what changes are desirable. I'm trying, but the going is slow. I'm posting at talk pages for both [{WP:WikiProject Categories]] and WP:WikiProject Council asking for help as I try to learn it all. Do any of the Africa task force participants or helpers already have knowledge in this area? Your help would be welcome! Meanwhile, I'll boldly break out your task force announcement so it gets its own attention-grabbing section heading. Congratulations on finding so many interested new topic editors! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Please find the new sub-page over here and we'll find a way to link it from the main project page. YaguraStation (talk) 12:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks again for helping out YaguraStation, I really appreciate it and also thank you for making the task force happen. We will have to catch me up on how the last part of today's event went but it seemed that everyone had gotten the hang of things this morning. Also thank you NewsAndEventsGuy for the positive feedback and support, it is greatly appreciated.--Discott (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm helping out today and we'll create an African-specific task force as sub-page, keeping tabs on tasks, members, and todos. The upstream project can deliberate with the project members how to organise this long-term YaguraStation (talk) 12:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- This is really cool, I noticed some of your activity yesterday. I hope no one was upset when I reverted the (very) few honest mistakes! Thanks for doing the project. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hello everyone, as I write this the workshop's 2nd day has started. Yesterday we worked on introducing the participants to editing Wikipedia for the first time by adding references. We have also covered most of the most important Wikipedia 'editing culture' issues (like NPOV, Be Bold). So far the focus as been on only 3 articles (most notably Climate Change in Africa) but we intend (for today and tomorrow) to start expanding that to a few other Africa related climate change articles. People have now broken into groups to focus on certain categories of climate change articles (which will likely reduce online activity a bit). Categories are: Dry lands, Climate change and agriculture, Climate change in Africa, Climate change adaptation, and one table for people to do their own thing. So if you see lots of activity from new editors on Africa related Climate change it will likely be from the participants. I am coaching them through it but there are a lot of them (about 40) so I am sure a few new editor type mistakes will happen. Please be nice to them. I will try and make a participant badge for each username involved when I get a chance today but so far I have not created one. Thanks, --Discott (talk) 09:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- That sounds like a very good exercise. It encourages both to think in NPOV terms and how to summarise things accurately. Two very important Wikipedia skills.--Discott (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Possible idea.... I recommend a face-to-face exercise, where participants pair off, and share opinions of favorite color or food intentionally looking for something touchy they strongly disagree about (e.g., I detest cooked ocra). Then spend time asking and listening to the other person describe why they like/hate that thing. Finally, Person A describes Person B's viewpoint without injecting Person A's own opinion to negate that of Person B. The test, of course, is when Person B agrees Person A did fair and respectful job. If participants can do this with non-emotional things face-to-face, try again with a hot topic of sex/religion/politics. If they learn to do that in the workshop, they will be well-prepared to handle online conflict editing hot topics on Wikipedia. See the box at the top of my user talk for more. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- I agree entirely, that's why one of the focus points of the workshop will be on how to avoid conflicts and how to deal with them should they happen. Hopefully that, along with some followup mentoring, will encourage participants to stick around on Wikipedia long enough to learn the community's culture and become part of it fully.--Discott (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Sure. Recruiting people who know a little about climate is a lot easier than keeping the good ones long enough to become skilled at Wikipedia also. The rules and disputes turn a lot of people away. If I can help folks make peace with those obstacles, I'd be glad to help. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Femkemilene and NewsAndEventsGuy, I fully understand. Its a long running event basically covering almost the whole day for three days running in a timezone that might not align with everyone so I dont expect anyone to commit for the ful period (except myself of course). As for being "known", very good question. Let me create a signup section on the meta page for people sign up and make them selves known as volunteers. Will that work?--Discott (talk) 14:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
FYI Misc threads posted elsewhere which relate to housekeeping and recruitment options here
- See open threads on this talk page
- There are a lot more users with our userboxes on their user page than are listed as participants, so I asked about bulk messaging those eds when we're ready for beefed up recruitment.
- Answered! When ready, see Wikipedia:Mass message senders
- Femkemilene has asked about having a bot mass-update the old task force banners on articles once we have a project banner.
- Answered! When ready, just contact the expert ed in that thread with details
- I've asked about the best way to archive the project proposal and its talk page
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Our article Earth's Energy Budget
FYI, I just verified, cleaned, polished, and gathered all the full citations in the RefList at this article. The text should be easy to work with in case anyone wants to take a crack at tuning that one up. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Citation tricks and tools and advice
Please load up this thread wild-west style. Eventually we'll organize all the ideas into a sensible advice page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Tools on the list at Help:Citation_tools that you or I have found useful (feel free to add)
- reFill .... this tunes up
{{cite web}}
: Empty citation (help) entries and puts bare urls into that form
- You enter the name of the page, e.g., Greenland ice sheet. The tool presents you with the proposed improvements in a conventional Help:DIFF window before they are saved
- You input either a DOI, ISBN, OCLC, or Google Books URL and the gadget outputs three things
- 1 The short (harv style) template for inline use
- 2 full (harv style) bibliography entry
- 3 <ref>..</ref> style entry for WP:List defined references
- You input either a DOI, ISBN, OCLC, or Google Books URL and the gadget outputs three things
- Visual Editor: In Visual Editor mode, there is a button to add a citation. It brings up a handy form with a field in which you paste in a URL, DOI, or ISBN number, and it automatically fills out the appropriate markup.
work in progress... please add your own thoughts tips tricks advice! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I added to the list. Visual Editor has stopped sucking, to a degree that I find it helpful for copyediting and for adding refs. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Mucho gracias! The more proven helps and tips the better! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
HOT >> Project Climate change / Africa task force has launched
Three huge cheers for the start-up of wikipedia:WikiProject_Climate_change/Africa_task_force. Much thanks to YaguraStation and everyone who is teaching and learning at the Africa climate change edit-thon! If any of you have interest helping organizing the parent project, we'll be grateful! All the banners and templates and categories and bots are a bit new (to me anyway). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Barn Star development
Many WikiProjects have developed their own barnstars to recognize constructive contributors. We can design and submit a candidate to the barnstar process. If you have ideas, please shout out! Better post a sample. Here is my first attempt.
What do you think? Would you like something else? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Wow, cool. Looks good! Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- A belated thanks to new editor @Tommaso.sansone91: for creating the global warming icon used to create the image! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
On reflection, I think I screwed up when I uploaded this. I gave it a file name that was quite limited to work on the project itself, or done on subject matter articles by project participants. But there are several deserving editors who are not part of the project. So to mirror how our parent project (Environment) handled this, I have asked to change the name to the subject matter, and in the text we can explain something similar to what they said, which was
The Environment Barnstar. This barnstar can be awarded to Wikipedians who have made significant contributions towards environment-related articles, raising environmental awareness in Wikipedia, or assisting in Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment.
The name change request is now pending. Once that's done, I'll have someone check the design for Barnstar 2.0 criteria, and finally will post it at project barnstars seeking final consensus to add it to the "official" barnstar list. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Btw, sholdn be used on Barn Star some image of Earth Warming - for example this one?Jirka Dl (talk) 07:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Article assessment
What we want to have assessed
Getting this started isn't as straightforward as hoped. I'm trying to follow directions at Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Using_the_bot#Setting_up_for_the_bot. From there I followed a link to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Generate categories. There used to be an automatic process, but now they just say copy and paste. I attempted to do that, and created a category and a bunch of sub categories. Category:Climate_change_articles_by_quality. Apparently the next step is to tell a talk page banner template to do its thing so the bot starts doing its thing. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
How we mark things so they are included (talk page banner template)
The best and easiest way to mark articles for the assessment process is by placing a project banner template on the talk page. Wow, powerful possibilities come with the banner options. Suggested reading for anyone who wants to know more (and even better, help)...
- 1. Start here WP:WikiProject_Council/Guide#Purpose_of_WikiProject_banner_tags
- 2. See all the examples here WP:Template_messages/WikiProject_banners
- 3. Advanced course Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide/Technical_notes
The old task force under Project Enviorment had one, which eds could add to article talk pages with the following syntax
- {{WikiProject Environment |class=Start |importance=high |climate change=yes}}
Starting with the example at Project Birds, I've been toying with a Project Climate Change Banner Testing. Your tinkering welcome!
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Alternative banner launched
Thanks to UnitedStatesian for interest in getting a talk page banner out there. In case other project members didn't notice, besides the testbanner above (a sub page of this article, not yet released to the "wild") UnitedStatesian has created Template:WikiProject Climate change. I was hoping we'd have some discussion about possible things we could try to accomplish with banner design before setting one loose. Among other things, we have to think about categories for articles so that assessment will work correctly. There are many articles in Category:Climate change and its various sub-categories (which include Category:Global warming). I hate to see us create redundant categories if we don't have a reason, and this new banner template appears to create a redundancy at Category:WikiProject Climate change articles. Aren't all the climate change/global warming articles within the scope of the project? Why would we create yet another category to be maintained and synchronized? Instead, let's just use the climate change category to get assessment process started. To that end, see these instructions; I've already started learning about this and created Category:Climate change articles by quality and Category:Climate change articles by importance. My thought was to change the banner template to tag articles for the subject CLIMATE CHANGE instead of the PROJECT, get it up and running, and if we outgrow that basic setup we can add bells and whistles to add on layers of assessment for the largest subtopics (physicial science, mitigation, adaptation, for example). If instead we start putting these things into a project category, then we have redundant cats... one tree for the subject and a tree here for the project...... I admit I'm new to all this. Is there a reason to think the subject and project trees would be significantly different? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- @NewsAndEventsGuy: There is an important difference between the two "master" categories (and their descendants). Category:Climate change is for articles, and not every article within the scope of this project will necessarily be in that master article cat or one of its subcats. Category:WikiProject Climate change articles is for talk pages, (of all types except user talk), is populated only via application of the project's talkpage template, and it has a very specific subcat structure (two subtrees, one for quality and one for importance). The broader project cat also drives the project's article alerts.
- All of that said, the talk page banner is of course completely open to further refinements. Suggestions or WP:BOLD WP:JUSTDOIT are welcomed. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- I am grateful for the help! The how-to pages are hard to decipher fir this project newbie. Am travelling now, will study your work and try to learnmore next week. Thanks again. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Cool, thanks all! I just started an assessment subpage to document all of this on and ultimately, to have one of those charts of the quality of articles, etc. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Climate_Change/Assessment -- phoebe / (talk to me) 10:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- ps the assessment banner works! I just added it to the talk page of climate change (as a top-importance article of course) and the categories populated correctly. Now.... we have a question on our hands. Do we overwrite the WikiProject Environment banners, changing them all to WP:PROCC banners, or do we just add a second WikiProject Climate Change banner in addition to the environment ones to each relevant article??? -- phoebe / (talk to me) 10:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Cool, thanks all! I just started an assessment subpage to document all of this on and ultimately, to have one of those charts of the quality of articles, etc. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Climate_Change/Assessment -- phoebe / (talk to me) 10:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- I am grateful for the help! The how-to pages are hard to decipher fir this project newbie. Am travelling now, will study your work and try to learnmore next week. Thanks again. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- My impression is that the Wikiproject Environment is inactive, but it can't hurt to leave it there in case they'll become active again. There are some topics like veganism that have to do with other aspects of the environment as well. We might want to automatically remove the task force bit from the template if that is possible. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- FYI see useful {{Bannershell}}, which is used when there are a bunch of projects and you want to collapse the individual boxes down to a list. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Phoebe: The requested bot, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 58, is going to leave the Environment banner and add the climate change banner; there is no reason to add the new banner manually if the article was previously in the Climate change task force. 16:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- beautiful, thanks for getting the bot launched! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 13:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Categories
WikiProjects are not normally included in mainspace categories; accordingly, I have removed those categories from this page. Any questions, please let me know. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Bot request
I have requested the automated re-tagging of the articles, at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 58. I will keep the WP posted. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Invite is live
I created the invite template, at {{WikiProject Climate change invite}}, and added it to the project homepage. Feel free to edit and/or begin using to invite members. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Formatting references to IPCC reports
I'm trying to add references to this chapter of an IPCC report: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter7.pdf . The chapter has a ton of authors and another ton of editors. I'm not sure if I should cram the entire list of authors and editors into one of our citation templates, or shorten it. Can anyone point me to an example of a correctly formatted reference to a chapter of an IPCC report? Thanks, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- BTW the chapter itself says to cite it as "Bruckner T., I.A. Bashmakov, Y. Mulugetta, H. Chum, A. de la Vega Navarro, J. Edmonds, A. Faaij, B. Fungtammasan, A. Garg, E. Hertwich, D. Honnery, D. Infield, M. Kainuma, S. Khennas, S. Kim, H.B. Nimir, K. Riahi, N. Strachan, R. Wiser, and X. Zhang, 2014: Energy Systems. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA" but this does not look appealing. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- There is no one correct way of citing it. You can do it as the IPCC suggests, or you can save yourself the pain of having to type out all of names and have a lot of repetition if you cite multiple chapters from one of the reports by taking a look at WP:IPCC citation, where all AR4, AR5 and SR15 chapters are ready to be copy-pasted. In the global warming article, we adhere to the standards in these. Femke Nijsse (talk) 06:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- That is damned perfect. Thank you Femke! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Kudos also to J. Johnson, who has been refining IPCC citations since AR4 (2007). With Femke's recent support and help, JJ has done most of the heavy lifting. I would just like to keep saying for the benefit of any lurking newbies and listening veterans that we should keep an open mind and enthusiastically embrace anyone who improves articles with citations that allow us to find the RS even if we think the cite formatting sucks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Double kudos, J. Johnson!
- That is damned perfect. Thank you Femke! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, you're all very kind. I should mention that NAEG has also been quite helpful in working out some of the problems. Unfortunately the AR4 citations are not all done quite yet, but getting there. Also, "correctly formatted" is somewhat asympotic in the inattanability of perfection, so even the "done" parts are still subject to tweaks.
- Clayoquot: the IPCC requested form is, indeed, quite unappealing. Also cumbersome, hard to read, and even intimidating to implement. (It is a result of making each citation fully complete in itself.) I believe you will find the forms at WP:IPCC citation much more satisfactory. Please advise if you have any questions or problems. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
New Articles needed
Please suggest articles needed to list below. crandles (talk) 10:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Climate forcing
Currently Climate forcingredirects to Radiative forcing but suggestion is an overview article about climate forcing agents.— Preceding unsigned comment added by C-randles (talk • contribs)
- Another approach is to change the redir so it points at Climate_system or maybe the specific section Climate_system#External_climate_forcing. Would that work? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Giving it a try. Looks like it might need extras like climate effects of aerosols and maybe a more general section giving links to radiative forcing. I'll see if I can attempt a bit of expansion.
- Some expansion done. Still want to include albedo though is that more of a feedback? Forcing/feedback split is rather dependant on length of time being considered and perhaps that is why this has run into trouble in past.crandles (talk) 14:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- I've never seen earth-surface albedo changes described as an external climate forcing in anything I've read. As a feedback definitely. But not as an external forcing. As you may have done yourself, a search for everything containing "albedo" quickly turns up relevant articles such as Ice-albedo feedback, Cloud albedo, Albedo feature, etc. Not sure what to do with that, just thought to mention it in case it hasn't occurred to you to go there yet. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Agree albedo is usually a feedback. Clumsily explained by me. But land use change that changed albedo would be a forcing not a feedback wouldn't it? Likewise say anthropogenic fires that put soot on glaciers. We have light scattering in the volcanic section as a mechanism but not a specific mention of albedo and I wanted to include it somehow. Seemed like a major mechanism (not a forcing) that was missed. However if you feel it is better without it, I won't attempt to revert to including it. crandles (talk) 13:29, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- I think we're talking about our mutual edits to climate system today... I generally agree albedo is a biggie and we need to work on how we talk about it, not if. We should have this discussion at that talk page probably. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Agree albedo is usually a feedback. Clumsily explained by me. But land use change that changed albedo would be a forcing not a feedback wouldn't it? Likewise say anthropogenic fires that put soot on glaciers. We have light scattering in the volcanic section as a mechanism but not a specific mention of albedo and I wanted to include it somehow. Seemed like a major mechanism (not a forcing) that was missed. However if you feel it is better without it, I won't attempt to revert to including it. crandles (talk) 13:29, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- I've never seen earth-surface albedo changes described as an external climate forcing in anything I've read. As a feedback definitely. But not as an external forcing. As you may have done yourself, a search for everything containing "albedo" quickly turns up relevant articles such as Ice-albedo feedback, Cloud albedo, Albedo feature, etc. Not sure what to do with that, just thought to mention it in case it hasn't occurred to you to go there yet. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Another approach is to change the redir so it points at Climate_system or maybe the specific section Climate_system#External_climate_forcing. Would that work? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Ecological grief
I just made this stub. If you can fill it in, please do NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Global change
This old and neglected article needs serious redoing, and in my mind should be considered a parent article for the topic of climate change. This would make an ideal focus for a wikimania or class project. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Describing global warming as a "crisis" in wikivoice
Please consider adding to the conversation at Talk:Greta_Thunberg#Using_'Existential_crisis'_in_Wikivoice NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Ecocide
As I've said here and there, making up cats and banners is easy, but setting specific editing and organizing goals and designing cats and banners to efficiently acocmplishing those goals is hard. So with that said, I'm not real sure what to do with the article Ecocide but it keeps coming up in sources I'm reading about Extinction rebellion, Greta Thunberg, etc.
Would someone with a grip on cats please think about appropriate treatment for this article, in terms of climate cats and the project in general? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- It's a difficult one in the sense that, so far as I'm aware, it's only been linked to climate change by climate change activists and not by legal experts, legal activists or scientific sources. I'd say that for now it falls mostly outside of the scope of this project, but that will likely change in the future. So far the article mentioned one red-linked activist linking the two. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Add video from Pheobe's Wikimania presentation?
Hi there, I have just joined this project after seeing Phoebe's presentation about this project at the recent Wikimania conference in Stockholm - very inspiring presentation! (I probably can't contribute much to this project initially but hope to ramp up my engagement over time). Here is a suggestion: how about we cut out Phoebe's presentation from this long video and then include it in the WikiProject page introduction? See long video to the right.
- What timestamp should we skip to, if we don't have time to watch the entire thing? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- You could jump to 8 minutes into the presentation. But I am hoping someone who is tech-savvy could just cut her part out of the long video, i.e. start at 8 minutes and then stop after 10 minutes or so (can't remember how long her talk was); thus creating a short video just about Phoebe explaining why we are having this WikiProject on Climate change. EMsmile (talk) 13:38, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks EMsmile I just watched it, and thanks Phoebe for your interest! The idea of coordinated global coverage is rather breathtaking in vision and equally in intimidation! It's hard enough to clean up just the English pages, how on earth (yuk yuk) do we do a worldwide multi language cohesive set of articles? Alas, I don't think we should use this clip unless we agree that our articles can say "if we haven't acted by 2031 we're toast" and the bulk of science RSs do not say "we have 12 years to act and that's it". The unfortunate soundbite has roots sort of like this. But the idea of a project video to help recruit members and build enthusiastic community is a fantastic idea. I wonder if Phoebe and you could put heads together to think of crafting one designed specifically for that purpose? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for this EMsmile, I am sorry I could not attend Phoebe's presentation in person as I was committed to the advocacy space next door but it was something I had planned to attend. So thank you for digging up the presentation and putting it up here. I agree with NewsAndEventsGuy that this is a great video to help build the Wikipedia community on climate change related subjects. --Discott (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- That's not quite what I said, though. I think its a good first draft but needs some refinement. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- NewsAndEventsGuy apologies for misinterpreting your previous comment.--Discott (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- No worries, easy to do. Thanks for gracefully helping mop the floor. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- Happy to help. :-) --Discott (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- I am waiting to hear from Phoebe on this. Making a new video is a project for the future but quite a lot of work. Why not just use the existing video for now, labelling it clearly as a presentation from Wikimania (this is what has been presented). If that sentence of hers is problematic then it could be cut out if needed. Easy to do for someone who knows how to cut video segments (I don't know how to do it). EMsmile (talk) 08:52, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- Right now, we lack sufficient RSs to add "we only have 12 years" to Scientific consensus on climate change so we shouldn't assert that claim anywhere else. It's quite understandable, Phoebe, that you heard it and repeated it, but does it pass verification, using SCIENTIFIC sources only? The answer is no. (For just one example, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0543-4) So I'm opposed to inculcating that false messaging in any way, and I think we should try to recruit editors who are able to work with both scientific and pop culture and news sources, to try to build great articles. But that job starts at hmoe. so.... its a shame that soundbite made it into the vid, but it is in the vid. Otherwise great job, Phoebe!NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC) See also https://www.climatecommunicators.com/climatexplained/2019/7/18/12-years-to-act NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- I am sure it's technically feasible to cut out that sound bite before "recycling" the video for our purposes... EMsmile (talk) 12:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- Huh.... good idea, that never occurred to me! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- I am sure it's technically feasible to cut out that sound bite before "recycling" the video for our purposes... EMsmile (talk) 12:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- Right now, we lack sufficient RSs to add "we only have 12 years" to Scientific consensus on climate change so we shouldn't assert that claim anywhere else. It's quite understandable, Phoebe, that you heard it and repeated it, but does it pass verification, using SCIENTIFIC sources only? The answer is no. (For just one example, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0543-4) So I'm opposed to inculcating that false messaging in any way, and I think we should try to recruit editors who are able to work with both scientific and pop culture and news sources, to try to build great articles. But that job starts at hmoe. so.... its a shame that soundbite made it into the vid, but it is in the vid. Otherwise great job, Phoebe!NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC) See also https://www.climatecommunicators.com/climatexplained/2019/7/18/12-years-to-act NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- I am waiting to hear from Phoebe on this. Making a new video is a project for the future but quite a lot of work. Why not just use the existing video for now, labelling it clearly as a presentation from Wikimania (this is what has been presented). If that sentence of hers is problematic then it could be cut out if needed. Easy to do for someone who knows how to cut video segments (I don't know how to do it). EMsmile (talk) 08:52, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- Happy to help. :-) --Discott (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- No worries, easy to do. Thanks for gracefully helping mop the floor. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- NewsAndEventsGuy apologies for misinterpreting your previous comment.--Discott (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- That's not quite what I said, though. I think its a good first draft but needs some refinement. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for this EMsmile, I am sorry I could not attend Phoebe's presentation in person as I was committed to the advocacy space next door but it was something I had planned to attend. So thank you for digging up the presentation and putting it up here. I agree with NewsAndEventsGuy that this is a great video to help build the Wikipedia community on climate change related subjects. --Discott (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks EMsmile I just watched it, and thanks Phoebe for your interest! The idea of coordinated global coverage is rather breathtaking in vision and equally in intimidation! It's hard enough to clean up just the English pages, how on earth (yuk yuk) do we do a worldwide multi language cohesive set of articles? Alas, I don't think we should use this clip unless we agree that our articles can say "if we haven't acted by 2031 we're toast" and the bulk of science RSs do not say "we have 12 years to act and that's it". The unfortunate soundbite has roots sort of like this. But the idea of a project video to help recruit members and build enthusiastic community is a fantastic idea. I wonder if Phoebe and you could put heads together to think of crafting one designed specifically for that purpose? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- You could jump to 8 minutes into the presentation. But I am hoping someone who is tech-savvy could just cut her part out of the long video, i.e. start at 8 minutes and then stop after 10 minutes or so (can't remember how long her talk was); thus creating a short video just about Phoebe explaining why we are having this WikiProject on Climate change. EMsmile (talk) 13:38, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hi friends, thanks for linking the video and I'm glad it was inspiring. It was more a broad proposal than a refined proposal, and I did not mean to imply that we should be putting any particular phrasing or terms *in articles*. EG I mentioned "12 years to act" meaning that we should get on with improving Wikipedia articles now-- rather than assuming we have forever to work on these articles, as we do with most topics. It could just as easily be rephrased as "climate change is urgent, and of global importance, and we should make sure our articles reflect this." What would make sense to me is to start to make to-do lists. I think we've already done a lot. To my mind, what we need to do is:
- rating existing articles for quality and identifying a to-do list for articles (merges, splits etc) -- the new templates made for this wikiproject will enable that, now we need to put those templates on articles
- identifying a list of 20 or so "core" articles that are essential to the subject. Eg Climate change, global warming, .... what else? These might be essential by readership numbers or by topic or both.
- identifying related sets of articles - eg articles about solar panel technologies.
- looking at other related reference works, eg encyclopedias of climate change, to see what we are missing.
- then getting to work - we want our core articles to be good articles, and to have lede sections that are easily translatable across languages. So: polish ledes. Check references. Improve grammar. Update facts. etc etc. etc. :)
- make an edit-a-thon guide (and yes maybe video) for interested groups of scientists or whoever wants to work on this
- and then... I don't know what else! This project page is a good start. I think a video as an intro to the project is a fine idea, but I would want to hash out the infrastructure for doing stuff, and get a solid to-do list going, first. (Because given that these articles are difficult, I wouldn't necessarily throw new editors at them cold...)
- As a side note, this is of interest to me on two levels - one, because it's an important topic. Two, because we are not that great on Wikipedia at tackling very complex subjects systematically. I think WikiProject Medicine has done some of the best work in this area. But our campaigns have tended to focus on things like biographies where each one stands apart. For climate change, that's not true: articles interlink and are deeply socially and scientifically complex. So I'm interested in how we can handle, and maintain, such important but yes intimidating-for-an-individual-editor articles. best, -- phoebe / (talk to me) 13:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- Hi phoebe, I am tempted to move your statement into a new section called "To do lists" as it deviates a bit from the topic of the video. Just to finish off the video discussion: do you agree with the idea that we take the long video, take your section into a new video (cut out the statement that is perhaps confusing) and then place it on the project page - just to give it a personal touch ("hey, there are real humans behind this project!"). If you agree, then whom could we ask who knows how to edit videos? It should only take 10 minutes of someone's time. EMsmile (talk) 02:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- Regarding your other points, I totally agree with you that Wikiproject Medicine is awesome and can teach us a lot of things! Two things that they did which I think are super helpful: they created a Manual of Style (Medicine) and they created standard headings for different types of articles. I think that's very useful and something we could think about doing it as well. I copied their model to the much smaller WikiProject Sanitation. It looks like this. It's an iterative process but once a workable system of standard section headings is in place, they get gently applied to all the relevant articles. It makes it much easier for the reader to find what they are looking for. EMsmile (talk) 02:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- @EMsmile: hi yes cutting & pasting my video is fine. (I wouldn't try to edit it; I said what I said). I am not sure who can cut the video off the top of my head... but I can ask around. Maybe a post in Wikipedia Weekly would do the trick :) As a side note, we'll probably have another session at the upcoming WikiConference North America on this topic! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 16:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
- Regarding your other points, I totally agree with you that Wikiproject Medicine is awesome and can teach us a lot of things! Two things that they did which I think are super helpful: they created a Manual of Style (Medicine) and they created standard headings for different types of articles. I think that's very useful and something we could think about doing it as well. I copied their model to the much smaller WikiProject Sanitation. It looks like this. It's an iterative process but once a workable system of standard section headings is in place, they get gently applied to all the relevant articles. It makes it much easier for the reader to find what they are looking for. EMsmile (talk) 02:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Discussion of categories
Discussion of categories
Climate_forcing_agents and Climate_forcing seem too similar to me. Merge into one? Which name preferred? crandles (talk) 12:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- @C-randles: I think the more general cat., Category:Climate forcing, is the better one. Let me know if you need help proposing the merge at WP:CFD. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Now proposed I think. It might be preferable if the Category:Climate forcing page message said the proposal was to merge Climate_forcing_agents Cat into this page but not sure how or if that should be done. crandles (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- I think I have fixed it, we'll let the discussion run its course. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Discussion there seems to dislike articles like Soot and Mount Pinatubo being in climate forcings category as the climate change effects not considered defining. If the climate forcings category is to be useful then I think it should attempt to be reasonably comprehensive. Consequently, we may want to consider moving the climate effects of these things to new pages like 'Climate effects of soot' and so on. Any thoughts on whether this is justifiable if the article is already short or other thoughts on this. crandles (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- I think I have fixed it, we'll let the discussion run its course. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Category:Climatology & Category:Climate_change_science too similar? Merge into one? crandles (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- At first I thought merging, but on second thought these two might be quite dissimilar. Climatology is a purely physical science, while I suspect that climate change science is a multidisplicanry science, which includes economics. Not sure whether climate change science is a 'real' scientific discipline however. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Looking at articles in 'Climate change science' Cat, I couldn't find any that had much hint of economics, they were overwhelmingly climatology without economics. 'Climate change conferences' sub category articles may well have economic considerations. Maybe that should be a separate category rather than a sub-category of Climatology? crandles (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Merger proposed. Discussion should be at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_August_30#Category:Climate_change_science
- At first I thought merging, but on second thought these two might be quite dissimilar. Climatology is a purely physical science, while I suspect that climate change science is a multidisplicanry science, which includes economics. Not sure whether climate change science is a 'real' scientific discipline however. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Category:Climatology has now been moved to being a sub category of Climate. crandles (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Moved this discussion here. Left some of major categories on project page, and added climate category tree, in case it helps to stimulate any discussion of scope of project. crandles (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Bot has completed its run
The bot has finished adding the project banner to talkpages of the articles that we previously tagged by the task force, so Category:WikiProject Climate change articles is populated. But if you see other articles that should be categorized, please put the banner onto their talk pages too. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
stub for Sept summit started
Please help flesh out 2019_UN_Climate_summit NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Info on assessment, cleanup, etc.
- Glad to see this project getting underway! Hope we'll consider ways to avoid duplicating work between enviro / climate change projects.
- Info that follows may be useful for getting a sense of scope of work and priorities.
- Please remember that activity on the project talk pages isn't the only indicator of an active WikiProject! Some of us gnomes who work on cleanup projects like to focus our efforts by WikiProject. We rely on accurate WikiProject tagging of articles to create cleanup queues. Many talk pages have no tags, or need additional WikiProject tags.
- Haven't spotted other editors who are making major efforts on the assessment backlog at WP Environment. For the most part, it's been just me the past several months, with an occasional random assessment from editors who assess articles throughout WikiProjects. Am becoming somewhat less active recently, so new articles in environment/climate will have missed tags.
- Many of the substantive environment articles are edited as a part of WikiEdu assignments. These articles are not typically reassessed after they are improved by students. Creating a queue for reassessment of WikiEdu contributions would help focus reassessment and tagging efforts.
- Practical scoping info for how much work is involved in this WikiProject: One gnome with a day job, editing manually without tools, can accomplish the following: Keep up with new assessment on a WikiProject the size of WikiProject Environment; Take a backlog of 1000 unassessed articles over the course of several months down to one or two hundred; Cleanup enough bare URLs per month so as to stay even with "cleanup needed" tags on a very small wikiproject.
- So this may give you an idea of how many people or how much effort is needed to keep up with maintenance tasks.
- The optimum situation is getting really high-quality article improvement from skilled academics or WikiEd participants.
- However, if article improvement comes mostly from editathon and contest participants, gnoming and cleanup becomes more important. When large numbers of articles are generated by less experienced editors, as has happened with some of the biography WikiProjects, it is easy to swell the WikiProject cleanup queues well past the point where our limited supply of gnomes can keep up. Oliveleaf4 (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Backlog drive Good article nominations
There are currently 5! good article candidates that fall under our scope, the oldest from January 14th. Shall we join the backlog drive an assess some of these articles? Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- Yes! do you have links handy? -- phoebe / (talk to me) 16:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Hot Articles
@UnitedStatesian: thanks for making "hot articles" work! I asked json to add that several weeks ago, and have been waiting for cats to become established before trying to teach myself enough about cats to make it work. Meanwhile, voila, you have again worked your magic! Thank you very much. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- You're very welcome! Always happy to help. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Hurricane Dorian
See Hurricane Sandy#Relation to global warming. I added a section to the talk page Talk:Hurricane_Dorian#Hurricane_Dorian's_relation_to_global_warming. Please offer sources and comment there. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
banner image
Hi all, I added this file, a heatmap of the earth from NASA, as the small image for our WikiProject banner: Template:WikiProject_Climate_change I am not tied to this, happy to replace with something else! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 16:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Links to useful images
- At the Flickr album of Finnish scientist Antti Lipponen (@anttilip) are over fifty climate change graphics, almost all being videos (Link). The ones I've checked are licensed under "Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0)" and may be valuable on Wikipedia.
- They're a good supplement to the Climate stripes and Climate spirals of Ed Hawkins (scientist) (@ed_hawkins) (Link, (CC BY-SA 4.0)). I've already imported and used those I thought most useful.
- As the Global warming and Climate change articles are already well populated with images, I'm disinclined to import more graphics unless there's a consensus to use them. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
2019 UN Climate Action Summit
Hi, at least here in Europe the Summit is quite discussed, page itself is visited, but I do not think that the content is good. I made some remarks in talk page there. Maybe more - speech of Greta Thunberg was important (and I support her very much), but it was not the only important speech there - there were other good speaches there etc.Jirka Dl (talk) 04:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Skeptics, deniers and POV
I think that this is probably problem on more Climate change pages - just now there was this change on Greta Thunberg page. I agree that "denier" can be POV, on the other hand I feel very misleading to use "skeptic" for those who do not agree with scientific consensus.Jirka Dl (talk) 11:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- contrarian is sometimes perceived to be more neutral, but I'm not sure. Skeptic is misleading, I agree. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Opinion please on climate change denial in English Wikipedia
There is a popular public opinion in various places of climate change denial. I expect everyone here is familiar with what this is and what it means.
This project is watching 1600 pages. Can someone who is a regular here please briefly give their opinion on a Wikipedia editorial culture which I am trying to understand?
I want to know generally how many, how often, how much advocates of climate change denial edit Wikipedia. Approximately how many regular Wikipedia editors do we have taking this position? How often do casual or new editors come to wiki sharing content in advocacy of this position? How much of this position have editors integrated and accepted into these 1600 Wikipedia articles?
My read on things is that English Wikipedia has not incorporated this content except on the page for the topic. Thanks for any brief insight anyone can share. I would be especially interested in anyone can point to a discussion or controversy where the balance of opinion was strong for the denial camp. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing this up. I've been watching Sustainable energy and several other articles about the mitigation side of things since February, and haven't seen any climate denialism. I'm very interested in hearing what others have experienced. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- I saw attacks on Greta Thunberg page from the very beginning of the page, but this is probably very specific. I am almost only one who is actively working on climate topic on Czech Wikipedia and see an interesting situation there - the "basic" page "Climate change" has "good article" label and during last 2 years there were almost no attacks of deniers, but one specific page "Global warming controversies" is systematically and "sofistically" attacked by some anonymous denier(s) and I am not able to follow rules and keep the page in good condition.Jirka Dl (talk) 05:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- Climate denial has been described in five stages Deny warming, deny cause, deny harmfulness, deny solutions and 'it's too late'. The first two are basically not held by any of the active editors in this project on the English wiki as far as I can see. We do get regular new users, users active in other areas and IPs that take either of those positions, but they're always asked the same question they can't answer: please provide a reliable source.
- This hasn't always been the case. It was only a few weeks ago that I removed the undue weight on one 'climate denier' hypothesis, the cosmic ray hypothesis, on the climate change page (confusingly, climate change is NOT about current climate change, but about climate change in general). A lot of the less-widely read pages still hold positions that were somewhat questionable at the time of adding, but completely out of sync with current understanding.
- The Dutch Wikipedia is different. There are a few climate deniers active. When I nominated the article about (current) climate change for FA five years ago, a lot of the votes against were from deniers. Being a third-year Bachelor in Physics back then, I didn't know that much about CC and allowed a lot of their talking points to seep through. When I revised the article a year back (a climate contrarian had asked its featured status to be removed), I managed to get all of these talking points out without many objections. Same as in the Czeck version, the page Dutch controversy about climate change attracts more deniers. At the time of the 'hiatus' there was a lot of activity, which I still need to clean up, if at all possible. The entire Dutch talk page is one where deniers don't have the upper hand, but do have some significant concessions made.
- Do you have a specific reason to be curious about this? Femke Nijsse (talk) 06:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Femkemilene: Yes, I am asking about this because I wanted to be able to better advocate for the Wikimedia community in nominating everyone for the award which I describe below in this forum. Thanks for your reply.
- @Clayoquot and Jirka Dl: Thanks for your replies here. I was hesitating about how to draft the application and getting answers from you helped me write it. My colleague Daniel Mietchen set up WikiProject Climate Change on Wikidata for this nomination and to complement this project here. Thank you a lot. Everyone in all WikiProjects for Climate Change merit special recognition and even if the award does not come everyone here is awesome. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Bluerasberry. How does the prevalence of denialism relate to your nomination? I'm wondering if you might have been wondering about whether POV pushing in general, rather than denialism specifically, has affected climate change content on Wikipedia. To that question, I would definitely say yes. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Clayoquot: My thought was that denialism was maximum crazy, and if there was any maximum crazy around here I wanted to be conscious of it as I drafted the award nomination. At this point I submitted the nomination and I do not see a point in coaching anyone on an acceptance speech until and unless the organizers message us to prepare just in case. If I get some news then I will come back here to ask for and assist with documenting talking points about this content. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Bluerasberry. How does the prevalence of denialism relate to your nomination? I'm wondering if you might have been wondering about whether POV pushing in general, rather than denialism specifically, has affected climate change content on Wikipedia. To that question, I would definitely say yes. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Climate Apocalypse feedback requested
Thanks to anyone who can comment on the talk page of this article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Renaming discussion launched for climate change
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Our current article climate change is not about global warming/climate change, but instead about climate changes in general. I've proposed a renaming, so that climate change can redirect to global warming. Input is very much welcome. The discussion is on the climate change talk page. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Prelim discussion is over... "formal" rename proposal is pending
FYI, see note at top of Climate change about renaming the article Climate change (general concept). There is a link to the formal rename proposal in that template. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Nomination of Wikimedia community for award
Daniel Mietchen and I submitted an application nominating the Wikimedia community for the 2019 "Climate Change Public Outreach Award" from Climate Outreach.
We felt that the Wikimedia community should get this award because so many people in so many languages contribute various perspectives in Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects.
This this page for some queries to come to understand Wikimedia community engagement in this space.
See the text of the nomination.
Special thanks to participants here at WikiProject Climate Change on English Wikipedia. The activity of the community here is easily accessible to me as a native English speaker.
Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- just for myself... Thanks!! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- Wow! Thanks for such kind thoughts. I'm wondering - how did you get the number, "About 10,000 people editing climate change-related content"? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- I'm concerned about the phrase "Wikipedia invites organizations to edit Wikipedia." We invite individuals to edit Wikipedia. Everyone belongs to organizations, and people who belong to certain organizations might be more likely to be interested in editing than the population in general. However, we don't want people to come as representatives of organizations, promoting the POV of a group they belong to. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- YIKES good catch, Clayoquot NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)