Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climate change
|Main||Participants||Popular pages||Style guide and sources||Get started with easy edits||Figures||Africa task force||Climate justice task force||Talk|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Climate change page.
|WikiProject Climate change||(Rated NA-class)|
|This WikiProject is to organise climate change related articles. Use this talk page for general comments. Any article specific discussions should be on the talk page of the relevant article. Any major project or discussion of multiple articles should can have its own sub-page.|
It appears that every current tropical storm (most recently Hurricane Delta) is being talkpage-tagged with the project banner. I propose we take individual storms out of this project's scope (and thus remove the banner), for three reasons 1) the link between climate change and any individual storm is tangential at best, 2) recentism: shouldn't we then banner every storm since 1970 (or thereabouts) for consistency?; and 3) the current tagging clogs notification pages, watchlists and categories and thus distracts the project from working on much more obviously relevant content (such as biographies of climate scientists, etc.). Thoughts? UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- UnitedStatesian, my reason for tagging a small subset of tropical storms is that climate change was a significant part of their media coverage and they are exemplars of how storms are chaning under global warming (rapid intensification, high intensity). I've noticed an underreporting of climate change on articles about tropical storms, even when climate scientists do put out statements about the storms having a connection to climate change in large numbers. The science of individual event attribution is also growing, and there are plans to have event attribution of tropical cyclones be part of operational meteorology, so I would disagree that the link tangential.
- In short: most tropical cyclones should not be tagged I believe, only those which reliable sources link to climate change in large numbers. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- The problem is that every tropical cyclone worldwide that makes a significant landfall will generate media, that talks about climate change especially this year when we have had an above-average season in the Atlantic. However, as I understand it the amounts of vertical windshear over the basins is also increasing, which is why we are not seeing an increase in tropical cyclones. As a result, I wonder if it isn't better to keep the stuff about Climate Change out of individual tropical cyclone articles, unless there is something more substantial then Delta's rapid intensification is consistent with climate change projections.Jason Rees (talk) 19:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- there is a difference between generating a bit of media attention, and many major climate scientists commenting on the link in reliable news outlets like the New York Times. In the first case, I think climate change shouldn't be mentioned. In the second case, it seems like a grave omission not to mention it. You're right that the frequency of tropical cyclones doesn't seem to be increasing much, but I don't see how that is relevant here... There is good documented evidence (not only projections) on rainfall intensification, windspeed intensification, and a higher occurrence of rapid intensification.
- An analogy: when some notable person dies who had been threatened and reliable sources mention this in great numbers, we will add it as well, even though most people die of natural deaths. We add it before a court case has taken place (before formal event attribution has occurred). I don't see why tropical cyclones are any different. When research was less certain as it is now (say five years ago), adding this link would arguably have amounted to speculation, but we are past that. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Climate of India FAREdit
I have nominated Climate of India for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Would anyone like to look at Draft:Climate Psychology by @Eswills:, and share your thoughts on whether it is ready to accept, and if so whether it should be a standalone article or merged into another article? It needs some reworking to explicitly attribute opinions rather than state them as facts, and some more reworking to summarize what sources have written rather than to only say "so and so has written about this issue." But my hunch is that it's a meaningful start to an article. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
What should the fossil fuel phase-out article look like?Edit
If you have a view please comment at Talk:Fossil_fuel_phase-out#Scope_and_structure_of_the_article?
Request for new articlesEdit
Some info from the old Fossil fuel phase out page (see link at Talk:Fossil fuel phase-out#Are_plastics_within_scope_of_this_article) can be kept and moved to new articles, describing the changes needed to phase out fossil fuel derivates. Seem important articles to make as the fossil fuel phase-out will have significant effects to other sectors. I hope someone from the climate change wikiproject takes this up, also because it is vital that existing fossil fuel infrastructure (i.e. ethane cracking facilities, ...) can be repurposed for the upcoming biobased economy (and not become "stranded assets"). Would then speed things up tremendously. For the ethane crackers, one significant riddle to solve would be how these machines can be repurposed not to make regular drop-in plastics, but really biodegradable plastics, hence solving the plastic pollution issue, with minimal changes and job losses due to restructurings, and changes in processes, ("disruption"), ... More info at the linked talk page section. --Genetics4good (talk) 10:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Name changes for sub-articles and categories with "global warming"Edit
After the big name change went through, where global warming was renamed to climate change, I suggest we consistently also change it for all the sub-articles. I looked around today and still found these two: Long-term effects of global warming, Global warming conspiracy theory and Adaptation to global warming in Australia. Can they be moved without a fuss or do they first need to be nominated as per WP:RM? I am asking because yesterday someone (User:Wbm1058) reverted my name change for Regional effects of global warming. Are there other "global warming" sub-articles that still ought to be renamed? There are also two categories in Commons that should perhaps be renamed (is it easy to rename a category?): https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Effects_of_global_warming and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Global_warming_effects_by_country EMsmile (talk) 02:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- EMsmile, your edit summary "changed the direction of the redirect." implied you were making a bold move. It would have been helpful to point to the discussion at Talk:Regional effects of climate change#Name change in the edit summary. I only noticed that discussion after the fact. I'm not sure every title including "global warming" should be changed. I'm inclined to keep Long-term effects of global warming where it is; climate change is a long-term effect of global warming. It's kind of an oxymoron to say that extreme weather events are (long-term) effects of climate change... Extreme weather events ARE climate change. It's like saying climate change is a long-term effect of climate change. Now, if the focus is on economic damage, loss of life, health effects, etc. then maybe "climate change" is OK. Economic damage, loss of life, health effects, etc. are caused by both global warming and the extreme weather events (climate change) that result from the warming. Just my quick thoughts; I haven't studied Wikipedia's articles in this topic area. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- In particular, "Ice loss and sea level rise" is specifically a direct effect of warming. I've not seen any other possible cause suggested for melting ice. wbm1058 (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
FAR renewable energy in ScotlandEdit
I have nominated Renewable energy in Scotland for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Which country articles are a good example in the way they include information on climate change?Edit
Can someone tell me which country article is a good example in the way it includes a section on climate change? The reason why I am asking is because in our upcoming edit-a-thon we want our participants to add some climate change content into the high level country articles. We have picked out some country articles, see this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Online_edit-a-thon_on_climate_change_-_November_2020#Country,_region_or_city_articles - So it would be good if we could point them to a good example where this is done well. I assume it's just a matter of a few sentences, perhaps a paragraph and then a link to the sub-article on "Climate change in Country X" (if it already exists). For example the article about Cameroon is a featured article but does not mention "climate change" once. Another example: The article "Climate change in Pakistan" starts with "Climate change is expected to cause wide reaching effects on Pakistan." and yet the country article on Pakistan doesn't mention climate change even once. - I've also asked the question here on the talk page of WikiProject Countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries/Templates But I don't have much faith for a response because I tried already in the past with regards to infrastructure and there wasn't much of a response: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries/Templates#Suggestion:_Add_infrastructure_to_the_template . Since the country articles have high view rates, these could be very important for us; small amount of effort, high impact?! (@User:Mcnlisa, @User:Sadads. EMsmile (talk) 04:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
We have reached 2500 articlesEdit
Well done, everybody for tagging and writing!
Maybe we can state some goals for attaining more B and good articles for next year? It would be useful to have all articles assessed. If you have 5 minutes left, why not assess some articles and flag any urgent deficiencies / highlight our best material. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)