Talk:State of the Climate
| WikiProject Environment / Climate change | (Rated Stub-class) | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||
[edit] Merge
I'm proposing that this article (State of the Climate) be merged into the NOAA article. There's no real reason why a (probably) non-expandable one-paragraph article shouldn't be there.
I'm proposing the talk be carried out here, contrary to custom, because other possible merge targets include NCDC and Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Agree. They should be merged. Shadowjams (talk) 11:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Disagree - at least 3 reasons:
1. the noaa article is already long, & the material would be lost in it; this is a logical candidate for a subsidiary piece.
...because, point 2.
the "State of the climate" report is a distinct & specific item, produced annually; it's not hard to differentiate it from noaa in general, or other noaa activities. it is also a collabourative effort, involving more than "just noaa".
...leading to point 3.
the article clearly has MUCH room for expansion; with updates every year (covering the annual report, changes in the overall situation, etc.).
yes, it's a stub now & we have a sad lack of knowledgeable people working on it currently; BUT in an ideal world, there should be people writing up a summary for each year's report, & linking them in.
should also be possible to add significantly more "general info".
Lx 121 (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Strongly Agree - If every government report received its own article, imagine the amount of individual articles would be created. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
-
- 3 points: 1. this isn't "any report". it's a comprehensive annual survey of global climate. anyone moderately serious about studying the subject would need a year-by-year breakdown of these reports. 2. given the quantity of material generated by noaa annually, it's impractical to cover it all in the noaa article. more important/more notable publications should get their own pages; that's well-established precedent. 'ALSO' as stated in the article text itself, the report is an "extra-ordinary" effort, produced by noaa as a collabouration with outside persons/agencies, not simply an internal project. 3. what's wrong with having lots of articles, that cover important topics thoroughly? wikipedia is an online encyclopedia; maybe we should start a "nutshell" wikipedia version, i'd support that, but this here ain' it. this is the big-time full-sized wp! xD Lx 121 (talk) 07:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
[AikenB1]: Keep it OUT. I for one, is representing others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AikenB1 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Disagree for reasons stated above. I'll see if I can make the time to expand on this article. I'm sure other readers would like to see a summary of the reports conclusions or main points.--CurtisSwain (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
