Talk:REDD and REDD+: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
::::A lot of the confusion I was hearing from users around REDD vs UN-REDD I think results from the articles not doing a great job of explaining the concepts they are about from the outset. It's likely most people would be more reading '''REDD+''' over '''UN-REDD Programme''', but with all these confusing acronyms they might land up on UN-REDD Programme by accident. @[[User:OliverEastwood|OliverEastwood]] I don't suppose there is something one resonably could add to the title of "UN-REDD Programme" to further differentate it from REDD+? Like "(governance)" or something? |
::::A lot of the confusion I was hearing from users around REDD vs UN-REDD I think results from the articles not doing a great job of explaining the concepts they are about from the outset. It's likely most people would be more reading '''REDD+''' over '''UN-REDD Programme''', but with all these confusing acronyms they might land up on UN-REDD Programme by accident. @[[User:OliverEastwood|OliverEastwood]] I don't suppose there is something one resonably could add to the title of "UN-REDD Programme" to further differentate it from REDD+? Like "(governance)" or something? |
||
::::@[[User:OliverEastwood|OliverEastwood]] happy to hear you have time for rewriting! Much of the exisitng content on REDD/+ focuses on dense technical descriptions of the conventions and policies behind REDD/+, so not much use to a lay person who is just trying to wrap their head around what REDD+ even is in the first place. [[User:TatjanaClimate|TatjanaClimate]] ([[User talk:TatjanaClimate|talk]]) 10:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC) |
::::@[[User:OliverEastwood|OliverEastwood]] happy to hear you have time for rewriting! Much of the exisitng content on REDD/+ focuses on dense technical descriptions of the conventions and policies behind REDD/+, so not much use to a lay person who is just trying to wrap their head around what REDD+ even is in the first place. [[User:TatjanaClimate|TatjanaClimate]] ([[User talk:TatjanaClimate|talk]]) 10:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC) |
||
:::::Heya @[[User:TatjanaClimate|TatjanaClimate]], thanks so much for all these thoughts, and apologies for being away from the thread/article for a while - just amidst a ridiculously busy week at work! However, next week I should be able to make a start on this. A REDD+ and UN-REDD split would be great as a starting point, but as you say both need a bunch of work to ensure they can be understood as distinct from each other. |
|||
:::::As I say, I'll make a start next week and can maybe give you a ping through on the next pages to get some thoughts, hopefully by next Friday. '''[[User:OliverEastwood|<span style="color: purple">OliverEastwood</span>]] [[User talk:OliverEastwood|<span style="color: violet">talk</span>]]''' 13:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:06, 8 June 2023
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Split article into REDD+ and UN-REDD Programme
As previously noted, the article is way too long - it's currently at 98kb, which is around about where WP:SIZERULE says the article should absolutely be divided. Currently, it seems like the article contains two separate topic - REDD+ and UN-REDD Programme. In fact, the article itself recongises that these are two distinct programs. Both of them are notable, but in the interests of being concise/not confusing the two, it seems logical to split up the article into two separate (and shorter!) ones. OliverEastwood talk 10:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- It was merged per Talk:United Nations REDD Programme#Merger Proposal and I feel it would be better rewritten to remove duplication and excess detail rather than split. However that would be a big job and as I am not going to do it I guess I should not vote on this split proposal unless someone else volunteers to do the work. Dunno if it would be beyond the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors but I could ask if no one steps forward. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- Good to know - I saw the merger notice literally the minute after I posted this so feel pretty dumb for not checking beforehand! I do regret not being around for the merger discussion, as I do think UN-REDD and REDD+ should be separate. It seems in the discussion like there was some confusion around the 3 and how they are distinct from each other, so while I do agree with the comments that REDD and REDD+ should be in the same article (as was correctly mentioned, one superceded the other), I feel that as UN-REDD is a completely separate mechanism it merits its own article (albeit with some rewrites to make the distinction clearer).
- However, that's just my feeling on it, and if a consensus has already been reached then I'll stick with that. I can crack on with rewriting as I'm very much in the REDD+ space right now (literally just finished a uni course on it!) - will update in a separate section here. OliverEastwood talk 21:10, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Great that you are rewriting. @TatjanaClimate and yourself no doubt know better than me whether this should be one article or two Chidgk1 (talk) 06:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hiya, unfortunately I haven't had any time to work on this and I'd welcome contributions from @OliverEastwood (thank you!) After looking at the article(s) I wouldn't be opposed to a REDD+ (incl redirect from REDD and Reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries) and a UN-REDD Programme article as long as the distinctions between the two are apparent from the first few sentences of the lead - I'd strongly advocate for one of those italicised sentences "This article is about... for ... see [wikilink]" at the top of the page (forgive me, not sure if it has an official name).
- A lot of the confusion I was hearing from users around REDD vs UN-REDD I think results from the articles not doing a great job of explaining the concepts they are about from the outset. It's likely most people would be more reading REDD+ over UN-REDD Programme, but with all these confusing acronyms they might land up on UN-REDD Programme by accident. @OliverEastwood I don't suppose there is something one resonably could add to the title of "UN-REDD Programme" to further differentate it from REDD+? Like "(governance)" or something?
- @OliverEastwood happy to hear you have time for rewriting! Much of the exisitng content on REDD/+ focuses on dense technical descriptions of the conventions and policies behind REDD/+, so not much use to a lay person who is just trying to wrap their head around what REDD+ even is in the first place. TatjanaClimate (talk) 10:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- Heya @TatjanaClimate, thanks so much for all these thoughts, and apologies for being away from the thread/article for a while - just amidst a ridiculously busy week at work! However, next week I should be able to make a start on this. A REDD+ and UN-REDD split would be great as a starting point, but as you say both need a bunch of work to ensure they can be understood as distinct from each other.
- As I say, I'll make a start next week and can maybe give you a ping through on the next pages to get some thoughts, hopefully by next Friday. OliverEastwood talk 13:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- Great that you are rewriting. @TatjanaClimate and yourself no doubt know better than me whether this should be one article or two Chidgk1 (talk) 06:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Categories:
- Unassessed International relations articles
- Mid-importance International relations articles
- Unassessed United Nations articles
- WikiProject United Nations articles
- WikiProject International relations articles
- Unassessed Environment articles
- High-importance Environment articles
- C-Class Climate change articles
- High-importance Climate change articles
- WikiProject Climate change articles
- Unassessed Forestry articles
- High-importance Forestry articles
- Unassessed organization articles
- Low-importance organization articles
- WikiProject Organizations articles