→Discussion: reply to NightHeron Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk | contribs) →Discussion: that's what the sub-article system is for |
||
Line 376: | Line 376: | ||
::::: My experience is that people often ignore these warnings :(. But maybe it'll work this time. [[User:Femkemilene|Femke Nijsse]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 07:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC) |
::::: My experience is that people often ignore these warnings :(. But maybe it'll work this time. [[User:Femkemilene|Femke Nijsse]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 07:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC) |
||
: (f) And almost forgot this reason: I think we want to cover more about this important topic that can fit into a climate system article. We can't skew climate system to mostly talk about climate change, so to keep [[WP:UNDUE]] in mind, we'd have to add to the two other major parts of that article everytime we want to expand about climate change. [[User:Femkemilene|Femke Nijsse]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 07:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC) |
: (f) And almost forgot this reason: I think we want to cover more about this important topic that can fit into a climate system article. We can't skew climate system to mostly talk about climate change, so to keep [[WP:UNDUE]] in mind, we'd have to add to the two other major parts of that article everytime we want to expand about climate change. [[User:Femkemilene|Femke Nijsse]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 07:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC) |
||
:: We try to do ''way'' too much in the top articles. The best ''top'' article, IMO, is written in [[WP:SUMMARY]] style, and quickly provides links to the main sub-articles. If we make efficient use of the sub-article system, this won't be a problem. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy|talk]]) 11:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Explanation of support''': When people say they are concerned about climate change, or when other people say climate change is a hoax, they are talking about global warming. If I recall, many years ago the media usually called it global warming and shifted to calling it "climate change", but Wikipedia hasn't caught up. I sympathize with how hard it's historically been to get consensus on the naming issue, but it's an ongoing problem for both readers (as described with excellent evidence in the proposal) and for writers who have to justify (and sometimes argue) over and over why they are converting <nowiki>[[climate change]] to [[global warming|climate change]]</nowiki>. A huge thank-you to [[User:Femkemilene|Femke]] for putting this proposal together. Cheers, [[User:Clayoquot|Clayoquot]] ([[User_talk:Clayoquot|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Clayoquot|contribs]]) 16:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC) |
*'''Explanation of support''': When people say they are concerned about climate change, or when other people say climate change is a hoax, they are talking about global warming. If I recall, many years ago the media usually called it global warming and shifted to calling it "climate change", but Wikipedia hasn't caught up. I sympathize with how hard it's historically been to get consensus on the naming issue, but it's an ongoing problem for both readers (as described with excellent evidence in the proposal) and for writers who have to justify (and sometimes argue) over and over why they are converting <nowiki>[[climate change]] to [[global warming|climate change]]</nowiki>. A huge thank-you to [[User:Femkemilene|Femke]] for putting this proposal together. Cheers, [[User:Clayoquot|Clayoquot]] ([[User_talk:Clayoquot|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Clayoquot|contribs]]) 16:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC) |
||
:: Thanks for your input :). Let me reply to your comment above: ''"General" to me in this context implies the article will give general coverage of a given topic, not that the topic itself has a more general scope than another topic.''. When I was debating different options before the proposal, I came to the same conclusion for the possible article title ''climate change (general)''. To me, the article title ''climate change (general concept)'' or possibly even ''climate change (general phenomemon)'' do make it clear WHAT is general, namely the concept. Do you see that otherwise? (I know that this move is more motivated by push-factors than pull-factors, but if you could formulate what way forward you'd like to see, that would be very useful). [[User:Femkemilene|Femke Nijsse]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 17:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC) |
:: Thanks for your input :). Let me reply to your comment above: ''"General" to me in this context implies the article will give general coverage of a given topic, not that the topic itself has a more general scope than another topic.''. When I was debating different options before the proposal, I came to the same conclusion for the possible article title ''climate change (general)''. To me, the article title ''climate change (general concept)'' or possibly even ''climate change (general phenomemon)'' do make it clear WHAT is general, namely the concept. Do you see that otherwise? (I know that this move is more motivated by push-factors than pull-factors, but if you could formulate what way forward you'd like to see, that would be very useful). [[User:Femkemilene|Femke Nijsse]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 17:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:19, 11 October 2019
Climate variability and change was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 May 2019 and 2 July 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Creative Mastermind.
Climate change vs Global warming
Not starting a discussion or taking a stance right now but just as a practical note for the perennial discussions on whether to move global warming here, there are several thousand articles that link to this page which you can review to get a sense for how many want modern anthropogenic climate change and how many want climate change in general. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 18:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, ReconditeRodent I don't really understand the point you are making? (I'll disclose that I have argued for changing the title of the global warming article to climate change, and can't wait for it to happen eventually - I am convinced it will, one day). EMsmile (talk) 02:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- It seems that the majority of pages that link here mean to link to global warming, and though the exact ratio varies each time I try to take a sample it would in any case be less practical to change all of them than the reverse (if the page was moved). But since I haven’t fully reviewed the other arguments made I didn’t want to jump into a discussion just yet. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 22:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
It's true we have a a lot of wikilinks to these two articles, and that some unknown percentage point to the "wrong" one, given the current status quo. This fact has been used to argue against making any name changes. If a group of editors were determined to clean house by auditing the thousands of links it would be a massive undertaking, but with careful planning and expert use of categories and templates it could be done in bite sized pieces. We'd need a team of committed volunteers, a clerk, and some wiki advisors who are expert with the tools needed to manage such a project. A way to get started might be to make a pitch at WP:WikiProject Climate change and possibly form a task force for the effort. This is worth doing in its own right. Once done, the perennial name-change proposals may or may not gain traction. But it would be worth cleaning up the various "wrong" article WP:EGGS anyway. I have had a note to consider doing this myself for a couple of years but the job never bubbles up to the top of my pile. Any takers? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm willing to coordinate the discussion, but I've done way too much gnome-work for at least the next five years in global warming to take up the clerk role here. Don't even know what that would entail. You expressed willingness to take up this role before ircc. What made you change your mind? Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- I haven't changed my mind, but for me and the way I would approach it I still think its premature. The project is going full blast to set up categories and banners. {Thank you everyone who is helping!) And while this is great, I observe that there is a long list of possible goals projects might wish to pursue with banners and categories. I don't know much about this. With different goals, would we set up the categories and banner differently? I think so. Once its set up, we need time to build team momentum to start knocking off the to do lists. Also time to verify that the banner/category configuration is meetings our needs. So I don't have the drive to charge forward with this other gnome work solo right now. Maybe someone else does. Meanwhile I'm interested in building the project team machine, and other low hanging cleanup fruit that should also be done. And then there are the short term action items that heat up, like working on Greta Thunberg before US papers start covering her much more intensely. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
separating current climate change from the general phenomena
The current article, even though correct is misleading. We the media talk about climate change it doesn't talk about the repeated phenomena but about current climate change that is cause due to the emission of green house gases. I think we better have two article or to make it more clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
- Thanks for your interest and please read the italics at the very top of this article, which explains that topic is covered at our article Global warming NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Hello IP. I think you're completely right. The article about current climate change is found under global warming, which is not the place most people expect it to be. We're working on getting consensus to have both climate change and global warming point to the same page, as these two terms are very similar. General information about climate change will then probably be found under different articles, such as the climate system. Alternatively, we can change this article's name to something like: climate change in the past and future. Bear with us, this consensus seeking might take a while.
- @NEAG: more evidence people don't always read the top note, yet another reason for our ideas to go forward. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- How about "climate change cycles" for the cycle of the climate changes: sun 11 year cycle, milankovitch cycle etc etc. And keep the climate change article for the current climate change (that is mostly due to emission of green house gases).31.154.23.74 (talk) 13:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- or maybe "natural climate change" to separate it from human induced climate change.31.154.23.74 (talk) 13:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Natural climate change is an option for me if we decide on a separate article about this (instead of the current discussion at climate system). Climate change cycles implies that all natural climate change changes in cycles: back and forth. That is not entirely true: climate change induced by plate tectonics works in one direction for instance. The same goes for the climate change that was a consequence of living creatures 'inventing' photosynthesis: the 'sudden' drop in CO2 caused quite a lot of cooling. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree we need to resolve this perennial issue with a consensus to change to something else, but I also think we have our hands full getting the project up and going, and doing the housekeeping that we would do anyway whether we tackle this or not. As we previously discussed, Femke, all that housekeeping will need to happen regardless and its state of being not done has been cited as a reason to make no change in the past. So.... its tedious and time consuming, but .... on with the job, as far as I'm concerned. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Is there going to be any progress regarding this issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.154.23.73 (talk) 12:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Depends if everyone keeps asking other people that question instead of asking themselves "What can I do to help resolve this issue and will I actually do it?" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- NEAG and me are working behind the scenes on it now. I'd say that the next month should see our discussion going live. Maybe another month or even two for the decision to be made and executed. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Femke, you are the one doing the heavy lifting and timetable push here, and thank you for believing! I'll keep kinda helping a little as I'm able. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- NEAG and me are working behind the scenes on it now. I'd say that the next month should see our discussion going live. Maybe another month or even two for the decision to be made and executed. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Climate crisis vs Climate change
@Rosvel92: are you aware that old consensus [no consensus status quo] is that this article is about the general concept of climate change, not about current CC? I'm preparing a proposal to have climate change and global warming both point towards the current FA global warming article, as a large portion of editors (definitely) and readers (almost certainly) get confused with the current situation. You might want to withdraw your merge proposal and join my proposal instead. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:12, September 4, 2019
@Rosvel192, I removed the climate crisis paragraph from this article because it is the wrong article, as Femke explains above. Being the wrong article, I have also removed the malformed merge tags. The tags were "malformed" because to use these tags you must select a single place to start a discussion (a single place, per WP:MULTI) and there make your case for the proposed merge. Just slapping up tags is called "drive by tagging". I started to try to redeem the tagging by moving the following paragraph here, but was hasty. I assumed, wrongly, that the paragraph was a discussion comment. After I got started moving things around I realized it was article text and this is the wrong article because it pertains as much to the PETM as it does the modern age. As Femke also observes, veteran climate editors are working on a comprehensive rename proposal. Please be patient. The text I removed from the article was
- In the late 2010's a newspaper called The Guardian started a trend where it advocated to call it Climate crisis instead of "Climate change". This due to feeling that the word "change" doesn't properly reflect the severity of the environmental problem, and as such, "crisis" is more appropriate. Several other news media outlets and researchers, agreed and followed the suit (while still considering the "climate change" terminology as an acceptable synonym, they agreed to decrease it's use in favor of using "climate crisis" more).[1][2]
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
References
Chop.... Chop...... Chop.......
This article has accumulated an enormous amount of cruft that really belongs in Effects of global warming and sub articles under that tree. As I start to try to focus on the article topic any climate change, whether warming or cooling, at any time in earth history, I've started chopping the cruft that is all about human-caused climate change/global warming.
I know many editors want current climate change to be hosted under this article title. We argue about that repeatedly, but the current article title status quo arose in 2002 and hasn't changed in all that time. FYI some of us are preparing a comprehensive reform proposal. Coming up with ideas is easy. Arguing about them endlessly is tempting (for some). But actually executing a name reform is far greater task than newer and casual editors can imagine. That discussion will be easiest and executing a consensus will be easiest if we clean up this article so it matches the current status quo as well as it can. So that's why I'm chopping.
By the way, the refs etc are all recoverable from the archives. I haven't actually relocated any of this. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- If you believe improving this article is a step towards our goal of renaming, I'll join you and remove weird and outdated information from it. Femke Nijsse (talk) 06:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
- Great! Assume it will take others 6 units of brain energy to think through the proposal and come to the right decision. If this article is full of needless crap, when they come her to think about it, they will have to expend 1 or 2 units of brain power to see past all the needless crap before wondering what to do with the good stuff. So all we're doing is conserving brain power by making the field lean clean and mean before asking folks to ponder the big questions. And if the proposal fails after that excellent thinking, then this article would need the same clean up anyway. So THANKS! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
- That's what I though as well. Also, I want to minimize the words spent in my proposal to prevent Wikipedia:Wall of text, while still covering everything I deem important. In the TO-DO list for two possible directions of change was 'clean up climate change', so those words can now be deleted. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Okay, done now. I think the state of this article is again good enough to not confuse people in our discussion. Still an ugly beast, but can't solve it entirely of course. Do I recall correctly you started the climate system section? If so, would you want to add a couple more sentences? Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
- You probably remember correctly, but no, I'm not inclined to add anything. Its my belief all of this content is redundant and/or should be exported to other articles, as we discussed last winter while looking over my user space draft and reform idea Original and updated and streamlined that led up to your excellent launch of climate system. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, I sorta forgot. I'm inclined to disagree with you on this one, as I do think it's worthwhile to discuss natural variability in its own separate article. This would, ideally for me, be a merge of this one and climate oscillation, and climate pattern, but that would be phase 4 of my plan to merge all of those. (Phase 3 is tidying up after agreeing on what we have to do with the name climate change) Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
- Wikibreak time for me, back next week NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
long period variability
@Femkemilene: something that I'm still confused about.... Let's say we characterize the current climate as CLIMATE-X. Then along comes some variability. For short-period variability, that's just a bit of noise within the bounds of CLIMATE-X so there is no "climate change". After all, climate is usually defined as weather averaged over 30 years. For cycles less than 30 years, their impacts are captured we do the averaging, so despite the noise, we still have CLIMATE-X. So far so good.
The confusion arises for long-period variability. Have we identified cycles in the climate system that play out over greater periods of time? And if so, since their impacts are not captured by the usual averaging, are these long-period cycles potential drivers of climate change, that might bump CLIMATE-X to CLIMATE-Y? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
- We have (probably?) identified things like this indeed, where internal variability triggered some tipping point for instance. The Cronin book I'm reading now gives Heinrich events as an example of internal variability happening with a period of 5000 to 10000 years. Some instability in the ice sheets.
- The books also makes some good points that 'normal' climatologists has slightly different definitions of external than paleoclimatologists. For instance, we ('normal' climatologists) say that volcanic forcing is external, while they treat is as internal. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
- "normal"....... ROFL. Seriously, this confusion is a big sticking point for me in figuring out our big picture reform, as we ponder article structures names and relation to each other. It's also a bit advanced for me, so I look forward to any additional light you can shine as you read sources and ponder. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
- I now think we should keep in mind that the 30-year cut-off is really arbitrary, and that climate variability (typically fast change) and climate change (slower change) are all on the same spectrum. I'm now thinking that it's best to discuss the two terms in this page. (But other days I'm more in favour of a separate climate variability article, where there is approximately a 1/3 overlap with an article on natural climate change. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
One-sided article.
RS-free WP:SOAP and [{WP:FORUM]] click show to read anyway
|
---|
There is no reference in the article to the science that sustains that climate change is not related to CO2 emissions. My understanding is that WIKIPEDIA articles need to have a space for dissenting views. NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. For example, the scientific conference https://climateconference.heartland.org/ is dedicated to the analysis of the science that shows no influence of CO2 atmospheric level on climate change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuye (talk • contribs) 14:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
THE article called climate change denial is a pamphlet against a dissenting oppinions, THERE is no a single reference on it a Papers published in a peer-review magazine that dissent. SORRY, my mistake. , I´m not suggesting to give space to "Climate change denial" I don´t suggest that. Obviously, if something has been changing is the climate, with periods of High temperature and periods of lower temperature, it looks that there is a consensus that the climate DO change, and we have previous global warming maximum temperature that exceeds the temperature of today. The point is to present the scientific investigation that has don´t find a relationship between increase in temperature and CO2 emissions. Your opinion is a little totalitarian, for example, "WE DON¨T" Really? you are the owner of the article? I think that an opinion published in a peer-review magazine is the standard to be considered.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuye (talk • contribs)
By the way, Nature is not a peer-review magazine, it is an advocacy journal of the importance of CO2 in the rise of temperature. Scientific magazines DON¨T have opinions about the subjects, they publish articles that the scientific community consider that are science-based. For example "The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)" PNAS is abstracted and/or indexed in, for example CABI, Chemical Abstracts Service, Current Contents Connect, EBSCOhost, Elsevier Scopus, Gale, H. W. Wilson, Index Medicus, Journal Watch, JSTOR, OCLC, Portico, ProQuest, Psychological Abstracts, PubMed, PubMed Central, RePEc, and SCI. So, this is a key point of peer-review magazines the relevant ones are LISTED, this means that his articles are included in the scientific search databases. If a magazine is NOT listed the articles there will not be used in good scientific investigation. Also, good articles show results that are conflicting (good articles are not advocating articles.) For example, The PNAS article "Quantifying the influence of global warming on unprecedented extreme climate events" Shows the influence of global warming, don´t advocate the SOURCE(S) of global warming, but the article has some interesting points A)The article found "extremely high statistical confidence that anthropogenic forcing increased the probability of record-low Arctic sea ice extent." B) but the article also said "The strong imprint of internal variability at the local scale creates substantial uncertainty in the influence of anthropogenic climate forcing on individual local trends (e.g., refs. 45 and 46), with even greater uncertainty for extremes than for the long-term mean" C) Aso said: "For example, neither the observed nor simulated trend in extreme precipitation is statistically significant over most grid points (Table 1 and Fig. S4), which could imply that global warming has not substantially influenced such events. However, thermodynamic arguments suggest that global warming should have increased the event probability by increasing atmospheric moisture (2, 48). SEE also atmospheric moisture plays an important role. Coming to your point I suggest that paper that I mention previously needs to be an acceptable reference.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuye (talk • contribs)
|
Example things that link here
There has been discussion of the things that link here. Specifically, the question is whether the incoming link really means to come here (because it means generic climate change) or maybe meant to go to global warming (because it meant to refer to Human-caused global warming and climate change, or other expression that means the same thing). So here are some examples
- Article useage meaning climate change in a generic sense (i.e., "the right way" under the current status quo)
- This section in this version of Radiative forcing
- This section in this version of Snowball earth
- Article useage where writer means Human-caused global warming and climate change or other phrase that means the same thing (i.e., the "wrong way" under the current status quo)
- Since the 2004 rename in this version of Attribution of recent climate change
- Since June 2019, in this version of Environmental law
(to do add talk examples) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
- In User:Femkemilene/sandbox I've got a link (Q1.1) that shows it links correctly 10% of the time and should link to ongoing climate change 90% of the time. Renaming this page and making climate change a redirect will solve decrease wrong links from 0.9*5000 = 4500 to 0.1*5000 = 500 :). Femke Nijsse (talk) 06:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Renaming this article to solve confusion
After months of preparation, I'd like to propose a title change to this article. Informal discussions so far indicate there is a clear consensus for having climate change redirect to global warming (with some suggestions even that it might replace the title). The discussions have not yet led to a best alternative name. Tagging users that have provided feedback on the sandbox that helped this proposal along: @NewsAndEventsGuy, NightHeron, Efbrazil, and EMsmile.
Currently, our global warming article deals with current global climate change, while our climate change article deals with climatic changes in general. Over the last couple of months, a few calls to rediscuss this have been put forward, and here at last I'd like to start the discussion for real with a concrete set of proposals. I've prepared the overview arguments for why I believe the current situation is untenable and what policies and guidelines are applicable. I also put forward a solution to solve this issue. The main reason for not calling an article about general climate change, simply climate change is that most people associate it with current climate change. Applicable guideline: WP:PRIMARYTOPIC:
I think that the first criterion is most important here. In Q1.1 (specifically point 4) I've laid out evidence that the term climate change is only used to refer to climate change in general about 0.5 to 2% of the time, both in lay literature and in scientific literature. In previous discussion, we've focused on definitions of global warming and climate change to determine this distinction. I think that misses the point of PRIMARYTOPIC, as this disregards how the terms are actually used. Climate change and global warming are both used in common speech to refer to the current warming. I suspect that the readers of climate change, over a million per year, are mostly interested in what is typically meant by climate change and the hatnote is insufficient to lead all of them to our page about current climate change: global warming. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Two possible ways forward and my argumentation for renaming
Considering the current practice leads to confusion (see entirety of Q1.1) and is at odds with Wikipedia guidelines, there are two courses of action for the current text at climate change that I consider to be in line with policy&guidelines:
- Merge the page into other pages that deal with climate change in general (mostly climate system)
- Rename the page. Criteria for good names are found under WP:CRITERIA.
My renaming proposal
Credit for this proposal goes to User:Colin M.
(PROPA) Rename climate change to climatic changes. The plural here provides a natural disambiguation from current climate change.
- Advantage 1: the scope can be completely retained.
- Advantage 2: we stop confusion (I think). There are two types of confusion that can happen due to an article title. One is with internal links breaking, and the other one with typing climate into search box and getting the wrong page. I'd say the former is worst, in the sense that people believe their on the right page
- Climatic changes is currently a redirect with only 1 link. So wrong internal links are set to not become a big problem here.
- By making the page into climatic changes, there is an 'early' point where people that search climate change break off.
(PROPB) Rename climate change to climate change (general concept) Thanks to discussion below I came up with a name I think might suit our needs even better.
- Advantage 1: impossible to blue-link on accident
- Advantage 2: The name is specific. A possible disadvantage of climatic changes might be that 90% of people associate it with climate change in general, and 10% with of climate change now. This specification makes clear it's not an issue/problem but a concept. It's also scientifically accurate.
- People actively looking for the concept of climate change can still find it.
Alternative names
Other possible names that I came up with, that I think fall short of meeting title criteria.
- Attempts at finding synonym for climate change which is not primarily associated with current climate change: Climate variation, Climatic fluctuation, Climatic variation and climate variability. Climate variability is not the same as climate change. It's typically used for short-term climate fluctuations. The other three terms are also used, informally, to describe either climate variability, climate change or both and are not precise.
- Option that does restrict scope: Natural climate change (restricted scope). Although the term is immediately clear, it might lead people to think current climate change is natural.
- Putting qualification after title, such as general: Climate change (general). It's not really clear what the world general means. It could for instance refer to the human, animal and physical aspects of climate change. Other option is climate change (past, present and future). Again unclear whether past only refers to last 200 years of further back.
List of names that came up during discussion (see discussion for discussion)
- Climate change (general concept)
- Climate change (general phenomenon)
- Climate variation (long time scale)
Merging into other pages
Information has already been copied to our new climate system article (much of it was changed as it violated verifiability and summary style guidelines). About a third/half of that article is about climate change and it provides a basic overview. The new climate variability article also has a slight overlap.
Background information
- Look at Pages that link to climate change (Special:WhatLinksHere/Climate_change minus the navboxes). Only ~10% are linked correctly, with 90% of them referring to ongoing climate change!
- Climate change is read disproportionately often for a page about the general theory of climate change. It's at 3000 views a day, compared to 1500 for the GA article on climate. Peaks in climate change readership often coincide with peaks in global warming, further suggesting people are actually looking for information about current warming (Comparison of last year's viewership)
- A large portion of comments and edits on climate change from new and older editors is about current climate change.
- Our climate change article is the odd one out in Google's search engine. Only on the 4th page of unbiased Google results is there another page about climate change in general, instead of current warming. For Google scholar (possibly biased towards my search history), the first mention of non-current climate change was on page 6. With a bit of rough statistics, this implies that climate change refers to the ongoing climate change about 97-99.5% of the time.
- There have been complaints and debates on the talk pages for years, and the number and passion of these has increased the last two years.
- First of all, back around 2005 global warming was the most-used term to refer to current warming on Google. In books and in the UK parliament the switch to climate change came earlier.
- The editors active then asserted that while the distinction climate change/global warming was not made properly by lay people, scientists typically used climate change in the general sense, while global warming was used only to refer to current warming (see for instance the first few edits 1, 2 of the climate change article). While there may have been some truth in it in the past, this is certainly not the case anymore now, as can be seen by the names of the most prominent climate research sources (IPCC and National Climate Assessment) and a comparison of Google Scholar's results.
- In a recent discussion, it was proposed that renaming the global warming article into climate change would play into the hands of those that want to downplay the human role in the current warming. Note that the article title policy explicitly states that "
In discussing the appropriate title of an article, remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense
".
- The usage of the terminology global warming and climate change has shifted. Google keeps track of the frequency of use for both terms and from about 2015 climate change has become the more dominant term for the current warming+effects. In books and in the UK parliament the switch to climate change came earlier.
- We've made a new article: climate system that covers the basics of the general concept of climate change, so that a separate article is not needed as much as before.
- Starting with Talk:Global warming/Archive 1, the first three archives have been rebuilt and formatted with dates and threading to extent possible. It is much easier now to see the denial/skeptic arguments that led to the dubious bifurcation we have inherited.
Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Alternative - Merge this content to Climate system
If you arrived here from a targeted link elsewhere, please bubble up one level to see the concurrent rename proposal NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- Instead of renaming, NAEG proposes to merge all of this article's content about generic climate change to the subsections under Climate system#Changes in the climate system.
NAEG says the ADVANTAGES to merging instead of renaming are
- Climate science communicators advocate for "systems thinking" when trying to talk about climate change. (E.g.,"Systems thinking can support public understanding of climate change". Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. Retrieved 2019-10-10.
- That's about as general as you can get
- Its a plain and simple 8th grade level English way to describe the general concept
- Avoids new form of befuddlement.... What we have now regularly gives readers a bad WP:EGG experience and I don't want to shift this to a new flavor via a new article title. EXAMPLE - Imagine our lay reader searching on "climate change" to read about Human-caused global warming and climate change (or whatever we call that topic). Our lay reader only knows the most basic info on this subject and after searching on "climate change" they run into into articles called
- - Climatic changes and the reader says "What? Is THAT what I want?" (But like the current article, it isn't)
- - Climate change (general) and the reader starts in on that but ends up saying "Where's the GLOBAL WARMING shit?"
- etc
- By putting the general discussion of climate change (and all the navigation links to sub articles) under Climate system#Changes in the climate system, this sort of ongoing befuddlement and consternation never happens during article title searching
- When the reader does arrive at the subsection #Changes in the climate system, fact that the article gift-wrapper is "SYSTEM" there will already be an unconscious mindset that imagines all sorts of changes in that system, and doing it this way is consistent with current thinking among climate communication researchers (see ref above)
- In the end, "climate change" and "global warming" will still land on the same page, just like the renaming approach
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Discussion and surveying of opinions
My proposal is to rename climate change to climatic changes. The current name leads to a lot of confusion. Climate change will become a redirect to global warming (which is the guideline when we determine the primary topic of climate change is current climate change).Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Please add NotVotes and Discussion in the subsections below'
Survey (not voting)
In this section, please say "Support", "Opposed", or propose a different article title, but remember this is a guide, not a binding vote. If you don't agree with the premise of this renaming proposal (climate change has current climate change as primary topic) explicitly state this as well.
- Question 1 - Should "climate change" and "global warming" both go to the same article (whatever its called)?
- Question 2a - Should climate change be renamed to "Climatic changes"?
- Question 2b - Should climate change be renamed to "Climate change (general concept)"?
Restatement of Femke's original two questions added NAEG NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- Question 3 - Should Climate change be merged to Climate system#Changes in the climate system?
Please try to answer all the questions in bold Answer-1/Answer-2/Answer-3 etc, possible answers include "support", "Opposed", "Don'tCare", "Also Works","See alternative" etc. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- ... Q1: Support the proposal that climate change should redirect to global warming. Q2a/2b Support renaming this article to climactic change or to climate change (general concept). Q3 Oppose merge. Vision Insider (talk) 22:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- Support the proposal that climate change should redirect to global warming. (and maybe some time in future the article on "global warming" to be renamed to "climate change"; but that could be a second step much later). Support renaming this article to climactic change or anything else that is similar & overarching (I don't think it matters that much what it is renamed to). EMsmile (talk) 01:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC) - Update: Q1 - strong support / Q2a- oppose / Q2b - weak support / Q3 - no opinion, don't know enough about that article EMsmile (talk) 14:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- Support redirecting climate change to global warming (and in the near future changing the title of Global warming to climate change). Also renaming this article to something like Climate variation (large time scales). NightHeron (talk) 01:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC) - Update: Q1-Support/Q2a-Oppose/Q2b-Oppose/Q3-Weak oppose NightHeron (talk) 14:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- Q1-Support / Q2a-Oppose / Q2b-weak oppose / Q3-Support NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- Strong support redirecting climate change to global warming. I'd also be in favor of changing the title of Global warming to climate change at some point. Will write more later. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC) Update: Q1 Strong support, Q2a: No opinion. Q2b:Oppose - "General" to me in this context implies the article will give general coverage of a given topic, not that the topic itself has a more general scope than another topic. Q3: No opinion. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- Q1-Strong Support/Q2a-Support/Q2b-Strong Support/Q3-Oppose Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Discussion
In this section, please explain your answers above, referencing reliable sources and policies and guidelines, specifically WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:ARTICLETITLE. Beware of making irrelevant arguments like these.
- Explanation of Support for Q1, Q2a/2b The topic of this article is not suited to how the term is used in common parlance. A title really does need to reflect how a user will expect the term to be used. Since climate change and global warming are generally used interchangeably, it is confusing to the average reader not to reach a page discussing global warming if they have searched for climate change. A central part of a title is the need for it to be readily recognised. While I know that this is only anecdotal, when I first visited this page I was actually seeking for a page on global warming specifically, not the general climate trends. Part of me thinks that renaming this piece would be a violation the idea that the title must also be a neutral term (and climate change, strictly speaking, is term referring to long-term trends and not the current situation), but I also think that, realistically, the battle has long been lost on this splitting of hairs. Therefore, making this page have a different name would be more useful to those using this page for what they expected the title told them it would. Vision Insider (talk) 22:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC) ETA: Opposition to Q3 the distinction seems esoteric to anyone (like me) who would be unlikely to use such terms that specifically. I think that a title needs to match what a user is expecting to find. It's also notable enough, I think, to warrant its own page.Vision Insider (talk)
- In terms of neutrality: there are two definitions used by our highest quality reliable sources for climate change. One refers to climate change (general concept) the other to human-caused climate change. Both definitions are mentioned in the IPCC SR1.5 report: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/glossary/. So I would argue, there is no 'strictly speaking' here. In typing this, I think I may have though of a name candidate for our current article: climate change (general concept).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Femkemilene (talk • contribs) 06:39, October 10, 2019 (UTC)
- That sounds reasonable. I think Global warming (General Concept) is a suitable title for this article. Since you are defs more of an expert than I am, is there a difference in meaning between "climactic change" and "climate change" that means the former isn't suitable? It could be a moot point, anyway, because now you've mentioned it, "global warming (general concept)" works well as a name anyway. Vision Insider (talk) 21:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for comment. Am I right in assuming your 'global warming (general concept)' was a typo and you meant 'climate change (general concept)'? The former doesn't really work, as you would arbitrarily only look at global warming events and mechanisms, instead of the full phenomenon. Climate change has two definitions: one of them human-caused climate change, and one of them climate changes in general, also before humans were around. I hope that when I say climatic changes, people will mostly associate that with the general definition of climate change. (In another comment 'climate change (general phenomenon)' was preferred over 'clmate change (general concept)'. Would you agree with that?). Femke Nijsse (talk) 06:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- That sounds reasonable. I think Global warming (General Concept) is a suitable title for this article. Since you are defs more of an expert than I am, is there a difference in meaning between "climactic change" and "climate change" that means the former isn't suitable? It could be a moot point, anyway, because now you've mentioned it, "global warming (general concept)" works well as a name anyway. Vision Insider (talk) 21:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- In terms of neutrality: there are two definitions used by our highest quality reliable sources for climate change. One refers to climate change (general concept) the other to human-caused climate change. Both definitions are mentioned in the IPCC SR1.5 report: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/glossary/. So I would argue, there is no 'strictly speaking' here. In typing this, I think I may have though of a name candidate for our current article: climate change (general concept).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Femkemilene (talk • contribs) 06:39, October 10, 2019 (UTC)
- Explanation of Support - for the same reasons as listed in this proposal. It is long overdue and I am so glad we are finally having a structured, well-laid out discussion about this; hopefully we can finally make progress on this question that has been lingering for several years now (I remember my own confusion when I got to this page and read completely different stuff to what I was expecting. Naturally I was expecting to read about the current topic of climate change, not an academic article on how the climate has changed since earth was created etc.). EMsmile (talk) 01:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- Re your comment in the survey that you don't know much about the Climate system article, you had a hand in bringing that about. Efbrazil, you, and others made a hard push for some renaming late 2017-early 2019. In response, I started brainstorming a solution. As I envisioned things, creating Climate system was key to the longterm solution. Femkemilene and I started talking and she ran with the ball creating that article, just because it was an important article to have. And that's how that article came to be, thanks for stirring the pot many months ago that led to these efforts! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I think it's most important to get clarity in the title of the article that readers are most searching for, concerning human-caused modern climate change. It appears that climate change is the most commonly used term for that. Concerning a new title for the present Climate change article, I see two problems with "climatic changes" as a title. First, it sounds to me as if it's referring to changes over a small time scale, which is not what we intend. Secondly, the distinction between human-caused recent climate change and climate change over longer time scales is not that the second is more "plural" (multidimensional) than the first; in fact, one reason for replacing "global warming" with "climate change" for the article on current anthropogenic climate change is that it is a complex process producing many changes whereas "global warming" suggests a one-dimensional process. For another possible title for the Climate change article, how about "Climate variation (large time scales)"? NightHeron (talk) 00:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for coming up with an alternative name! I think we typically speak of long time scales, so I'm going to comment on the name climate variation (long time scales). I'm not immediately enthusiastic. There are two drawbacks of the name. The first one is that it's rather long. If at all possible, we should avoid long names. (Of course, avoiding plural is also commendable). The second one is that is quite a roundabout way of describing climate change as general concept. Which brings me to a new idea: what about the title climate change (general concept)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Femkemilene (talk • contribs) 06:39, October 10, 2019 (UTC)
- I think either Climate variation (large time scales) or Climate variation (long time scales) is okay. The title isn't any longer than many titles of BLP articles where a few words in parentheses distinguish the subject of the article from other people with the same name. The trouble with (general concept) is that it implies a theoretical discussion of principles of climate variation rather than an article with a lot of specific information about concrete climate changes through the ages. NightHeron (talk) 12:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- @NightHeron: Please see WP:ONEDOWN at Make technical articles understandable. If we target freshman year college and per ONEDOWN write for highschool, do those titles make this basic top level summary article more or less comprehensible to your average 16yr old? In case it isn't clear, I think the techy titles make things worse, not better. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- @NewsAndEventsGuy: Yes, I very much agree with your general point. Elsewhere I suggested that the Global warming article needs to be reorganized so as to frontload the easily understandable material and put the more technical content toward the end; this would be in line with WP:Make technical articles understandable#Put the least obscure parts of the article up front. Global warming is the article that's of tremendous popular interest, especially among young people, whereas the topic of climate variation over the ages would not be of interest to nearly as many high school or college students. But in any case, I don't see any words in the title I suggested that would be unclear to high school students (even in the U.S., where vocabulary development is not a strong point of the educational system). NightHeron (talk) 13:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- FYI, re the offpoint tangent, Global warming evolved that way during frequent "Its not actually warming" battles and reform is long overdue.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- @NewsAndEventsGuy: Yes, I very much agree with your general point. Elsewhere I suggested that the Global warming article needs to be reorganized so as to frontload the easily understandable material and put the more technical content toward the end; this would be in line with WP:Make technical articles understandable#Put the least obscure parts of the article up front. Global warming is the article that's of tremendous popular interest, especially among young people, whereas the topic of climate variation over the ages would not be of interest to nearly as many high school or college students. But in any case, I don't see any words in the title I suggested that would be unclear to high school students (even in the U.S., where vocabulary development is not a strong point of the educational system). NightHeron (talk) 13:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- But this article currently is about general climate change and not a history of climate changes. The historic events are used as examples. I don't agree with NEAG's assessment that the title is too techy, instead it's not precise enough to me. (NEAG: also note the word college is US-specific. In the UK, college freshers are 16)) Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- The first sentence of the article mentions "extended period of time" as a characteristic of the topic. From a popular standpoint, the main difference between the Global warming article and the Climate change article is that the former deals with a current issue with impacts in the near future -- a few years or a few decades, whereas the latter deals with changes over time periods that are between a few decades and a few million years (as stated in the second sentence of the lead). NightHeron (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) Re current warming & "decades".... Science says... sea levels will continue to rise for thousands of years, and under a status quo response it will take millions of years to reset the biodiversity from the mass extinction now underway. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- The current climate change instance is not distinguishable from other climatic changes in terms of how long the event is. It's not (that?) controversial to say that this event will cause the next (few?) glaciation(s) to not occur, the first one which would have been expected ten thousands of years from now. Agree that either of climate variation or climate change (general concept) will be read far less (and even more so, far less by 16-yr olds) than climate change. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- I thought there's a scientific consensus that human-caused climate change is occurring much more rapidly than natural climate change normally occurs. If this is correct, then there really is a difference in time scale. NightHeron (talk) 14:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- Arguing for a difference is speed is something else than what your title implies I feel. There is consensus it's faster than the last thousands of years. But tipping points have caused rapid change in the past as well. I'm not a paleoclimatologist, but I wouldn't say that there is consensus that now is the fastest change ever. You are right that normally natural climate change is slower. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- @NightHeron... sounds like you may be confusing "timescale" and "rate". The first is just time, i.e., number of years. The second is change per unit of years. You're right though... the science does say the rate of climate change is very fast compared to past events in the geo record. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- I thought there's a scientific consensus that human-caused climate change is occurring much more rapidly than natural climate change normally occurs. If this is correct, then there really is a difference in time scale. NightHeron (talk) 14:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- The first sentence of the article mentions "extended period of time" as a characteristic of the topic. From a popular standpoint, the main difference between the Global warming article and the Climate change article is that the former deals with a current issue with impacts in the near future -- a few years or a few decades, whereas the latter deals with changes over time periods that are between a few decades and a few million years (as stated in the second sentence of the lead). NightHeron (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- @NightHeron: Please see WP:ONEDOWN at Make technical articles understandable. If we target freshman year college and per ONEDOWN write for highschool, do those titles make this basic top level summary article more or less comprehensible to your average 16yr old? In case it isn't clear, I think the techy titles make things worse, not better. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- I think either Climate variation (large time scales) or Climate variation (long time scales) is okay. The title isn't any longer than many titles of BLP articles where a few words in parentheses distinguish the subject of the article from other people with the same name. The trouble with (general concept) is that it implies a theoretical discussion of principles of climate variation rather than an article with a lot of specific information about concrete climate changes through the ages. NightHeron (talk) 12:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- Another point to consider: "what is long time scales". For geologists/geology undergraduates, thousands or even hundred of thousands of years are considered short time scales. For this group, which might be one of the major groups interested in this article, your proposed title isn't sufficiently precise. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Femkemilene: The second sentence in the article establishes what is meant: "This length of time can be as short as a few decades to as long as millions of years." @NewsAndEventsGuy: I'm only a layperson and have read little of the scientific literature. But as I understand it, the main point about time scale -- or the rate, if you prefer that term -- is that in the past climate change usually occurred over long enough periods so that most animals and/or humans could adapt, for example, by migrating or changing diet and (in the case of humans) the basis for their economy. But the current anthropogenic climate change is occurring so fast that many fear that we won't be able to adapt. This means that the rate and time scale are a central issue in distinguishing anthropogenic climate change from the typical climate changes that have occurred in the past. NightHeron (talk) 21:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, the article itself is clear, but we want people to be able to find the article, which is one of the main functions of a title. In WP:CRITERIA there are five criteria listed that make up a good title, and one of them is preciseness, which I don't think your title meets. I think the longness of the title (conciseness is another criterion), can be compromised on, but since we're out to dispel confusion, preciseness is quite important. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Femkemilene: The second sentence in the article establishes what is meant: "This length of time can be as short as a few decades to as long as millions of years." @NewsAndEventsGuy: I'm only a layperson and have read little of the scientific literature. But as I understand it, the main point about time scale -- or the rate, if you prefer that term -- is that in the past climate change usually occurred over long enough periods so that most animals and/or humans could adapt, for example, by migrating or changing diet and (in the case of humans) the basis for their economy. But the current anthropogenic climate change is occurring so fast that many fear that we won't be able to adapt. This means that the rate and time scale are a central issue in distinguishing anthropogenic climate change from the typical climate changes that have occurred in the past. NightHeron (talk) 21:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for coming up with an alternative name! I think we typically speak of long time scales, so I'm going to comment on the name climate variation (long time scales). I'm not immediately enthusiastic. There are two drawbacks of the name. The first one is that it's rather long. If at all possible, we should avoid long names. (Of course, avoiding plural is also commendable). The second one is that is quite a roundabout way of describing climate change as general concept. Which brings me to a new idea: what about the title climate change (general concept)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Femkemilene (talk • contribs) 06:39, October 10, 2019 (UTC)
- NewAndEventsGuy
- (A) Malformed discussion headings the bolded "explanation of support" in this discussion section appears to recreate the survey and inflate the level of support across the board, but that's misleading. The survey itself has multiple questions; its very hard to tell which things each ed actually supports, and which they don't care about, etc.
- (B) Question 1 = YES", climate change" and "global warming" should land on the same page because in the common tongue they mean the same thing. These phrases became assigned to articles with different scope for a really lame reason in 2002-2004
- (C) Q2a = NO and Q3 = YES for reasons stated above, in section #Alternative_-_Merge_this_content_to_Climate_system
- (D) Q2b = weak oppose Although I made basically the same proposal in June 2014 now I think this is merely a Plan-B. Merging to CLimate system is still better. So far, I only see Femkemiline's comments of 12:43, 10 October opposing the merge alternative. Femke and I are both guessing what the future reader's experience will be, kinda like CRYSTALBALL and IJUSTLIKE sort of thinking. There aren't any clear policy reasons to prefer one over the other. However, there IS an RS-based reason, which I have already provided. Systems-based thinking is an important element in clear communication about this topic. Therefore, I'd talk about general change in the context of workings of the climate system, rather than as a stand alone article. Femke, observe that we had a "climate change" article for 16 or 17 years and how astonished you were when I pointed out we had no CLIMATE SYSTEM article!! Now we have RSs supporting science communication that says Systems-thinking is the way to do it. So I weakly oppose Climate change (general concept) on basis of my guessing about future reader experience and because science communication RSs say presenting it in systems-based thinking is the way to go. I think Climate system#Changes in the climate system is preferable, but I can reluctantly accept Climate change (general concept) as a Plan-B worth taking for a test drive, if all else fails.
- (E) Q2b = weak oppose (Part 2) If we call this Climate change (general concept), then after the expected rename effort at Global warming (which I think is on hold until the present dust settles) we could end up with... just for example....
Outcome in future rename discussion What articles would readers contend with If Global warming is not renamed) Climate change (general concept) and Global warming If Global warming moves to "Climate change" Climate change (general concept) and Climate change If Global warming moves to "Global warming and climate change" Climate change (general concept) and Global warming and climate change If instead Climate change is merged as proposed above Climate system and Global warming-possibly renamed
- The table shows that using "Climate change (general concept)", while proposed in very good faith, it will accidentally make some options for renaming "global warming" far less appealing before we even have that discussion. If we simply merge to Climate system, we really won't have to deal with similar titles anymore.
- (F) To answer one of Femkemilines guesses about the future, if anyone tries to make a generic climate change article or complains that we're hiding stuff, we answer, "Sure we have an article, its at Climate system especially under headnig 3. Did you READ the hatnote at Global warming (which says this)? Did you READ the invisible comment we added to the various redirects (which say this)?
- NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- Note that I'm against calling the article climate change (in general) per, among other things, reasoning above and under User:Clayoquet's comment. I think that we need to specify better by saying WHAT is general. Hence climate change (general concept). Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, I changed all the (in general)s in my comment to (general concept)s NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- Note that I'm against calling the article climate change (in general) per, among other things, reasoning above and under User:Clayoquet's comment. I think that we need to specify better by saying WHAT is general. Hence climate change (general concept). Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- Femkemilene (discussion proposal NEAG)
- (a) The main reason to oppose for me is that we invite a new perennial discussion with this proposal. There will always and always be people that want to have a general article about climate change.
- (b) Furthermore, some of our readers might start complaining that we 'hide away' information about climatic change by not even having a page about it.
- (c) Request to talk about ages, instead of talking about a US-specific grades Having thought about it a bit more, I now prefer climate change (general concept) to climatic changes because it's perfectly specific for TWO groups of people that might have interest in it: the general public and the specialists. I'm going to complicate the discussion a bit further my introducing this option as well. If a 14-yr old were to search in our search box and come across two options: climate change & climate change (general concept), I think most of them will go for the simplest option before thinking. The majority of that small group that does start thinking will, even if they hadn't thought about climate change as having occurred before, connect the dots SOLELY from article titles. Then, the last portion will be able to be lead to the correct page by a hatnote.
- (d) With this longer name climate change (general concept) I think the two types of EGG confusion (via blue links definitely and via search 99% of time) will be solved.
- (e) People actively searching for climate change in general will have some difficulty finding it. From the search box, many might go go to global warming first (some might quit because they KNOW that's the wrong page), then some will miss the hat-note (I assume we'll refer to a section in a hat-note? That's quite uncommon, right?). Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- RE(A) that's easily preventable. This reform will convert "climate change" into a redirect. Your fear is that people will constantly try to turn it back into an article. Any editor who tries has to hit the "edit" button. In edit mode, they will find this invisible comment
- Climate change content as a redirect as seen in edit mode
- <!-- EDITORS Per prior consensus [[Found here]], please do not turn this redirect into an article without first proposing this change and getting consensus at [[Talk:(new place)]]. Be sure to notify interested editors at [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climate_change]]. Thanks. -->
- #REDIRECT [[Climate change (general concept)]] or
- #REDIRECT [[Climate system#Changes in the climate system]] or
- (other place as we decide in this thread)
- Climate change content as a redirect as seen in edit mode
- NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- My experience is that people often ignore these warnings :(. But maybe it'll work this time. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- RE(A) that's easily preventable. This reform will convert "climate change" into a redirect. Your fear is that people will constantly try to turn it back into an article. Any editor who tries has to hit the "edit" button. In edit mode, they will find this invisible comment
- (f) And almost forgot this reason: I think we want to cover more about this important topic that can fit into a climate system article. We can't skew climate system to mostly talk about climate change, so to keep WP:UNDUE in mind, we'd have to add to the two other major parts of that article everytime we want to expand about climate change. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- We try to do way too much in the top articles. The best top article, IMO, is written in WP:SUMMARY style, and quickly provides links to the main sub-articles. If we make efficient use of the sub-article system, this won't be a problem. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Explanation of support: When people say they are concerned about climate change, or when other people say climate change is a hoax, they are talking about global warming. If I recall, many years ago the media usually called it global warming and shifted to calling it "climate change", but Wikipedia hasn't caught up. I sympathize with how hard it's historically been to get consensus on the naming issue, but it's an ongoing problem for both readers (as described with excellent evidence in the proposal) and for writers who have to justify (and sometimes argue) over and over why they are converting [[climate change]] to [[global warming|climate change]]. A huge thank-you to Femke for putting this proposal together. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input :). Let me reply to your comment above: "General" to me in this context implies the article will give general coverage of a given topic, not that the topic itself has a more general scope than another topic.. When I was debating different options before the proposal, I came to the same conclusion for the possible article title climate change (general). To me, the article title climate change (general concept) or possibly even climate change (general phenomemon) do make it clear WHAT is general, namely the concept. Do you see that otherwise? (I know that this move is more motivated by push-factors than pull-factors, but if you could formulate what way forward you'd like to see, that would be very useful). Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- I think climate change (general phenomenon) could work. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- So to confirm, you prefer 'climate change (general phenomenon)' over 'climate change (general concept)'. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- I think climate change (general phenomenon) could work. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input :). Let me reply to your comment above: "General" to me in this context implies the article will give general coverage of a given topic, not that the topic itself has a more general scope than another topic.. When I was debating different options before the proposal, I came to the same conclusion for the possible article title climate change (general). To me, the article title climate change (general concept) or possibly even climate change (general phenomemon) do make it clear WHAT is general, namely the concept. Do you see that otherwise? (I know that this move is more motivated by push-factors than pull-factors, but if you could formulate what way forward you'd like to see, that would be very useful). Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)