Talk:Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Environment / Climate change  (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Climate change task force.
 

Originally about 2005 conference[edit]

Consensus is clear that this article should be about the conference rather than being a content fork. The article has already been reverted and moved in accordance with this, so my close is a formality. Editors may want to merge content from the previous version into Climate change mitigation. Notability of the conference was not determined by this RfC. Fences&Windows 22:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the article be returned to be about the 2005 conference and let Climate change mitigation be about the general climate change mitigation matter? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

This article was originally about Avoiding dangerous climate change (2005 conference). We already have Climate change mitigation about the main matter. In 2011 the article was changed to be about the general concept of climate change mitigation, only under a different name. At the AfD it was pointed out that the different name isn't that common. After this was pointed out at the AfD the broad concensus was to revert back to the version before the change and possibly rename the article, adding (2005 conference) after it. Since this is a very unorthodox situation at the AfD and it had no relation to normal procedures, it was closed as simply no concensus. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Revert years back was a common position during the AfD debate. I think this should happen and any usable material that would be excised should be merged into other articles where possible. Shritwod (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Revert if not in actuality, at least in spirit. This edit writes the textbook on page hijacking; I defy any editor to find a more egregious example. This page needs to be rewritten to be about the 2005 conference, and not about the vaguely-defined concept, which is clearly already well-covered by Wikipedia. Jm (talk | contribs) 20:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep current breadth of content. (1) The article covers a s!ubstantial concept that has been the subject of years of international diplomacy and scientific reseach, as well as being the subject of a scientific conference that was held on the topic. Covering all these topics together is sensible. (2) The present title differs from the original only in capitalization. At the time the article was expanded and the capitalization changed (2011), WP links to the article concerned the overall concept, not the conference particularly. (3) The article has been reasonably expanded, not hijacked. (4) Broad consensus on the talk page has been to not merge the article (see second section upward from here). (5) The expanded article has existed for nearly 4-1/2 years. (6) I advocate reverting the article to the recent version 701511859 of January 24, 2016, which devoted 7 paragraphs to the conference instead of the present two sentences, with future improvements to start from there. Coastwise (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
(1) is a non-sequitur: climate change mitigation is a notable topic, but climate change mitigation as an article exists, and you have not proved either that ADCC is an independant, standalone-worthy topic, or that ADCC is a better place to deal with this. (2) and (3) are in my view irrelevant: you did "hijack" the article by expanding considerably its scope but someone's "hijack" is another's "bold change". (4) is a rewriting of history: as one can see, the merge request was made and refused about POV-fork concerns, and the scope of the article was not discussed seriously (unlike here); and anyways, consensus can change. (5) is a textbook example of WP:ARTICLEAGE. Finally, if one scraps (6) of the technicalities, it just suggests that the article should keep the largest scope possible (and I disagree, as most others do, per discussion elsewhere). Tigraan (talk) 09:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Rename the current title "Avoiding dangerous climate change" screams essay. The first step is to find a title which limits the scope of the article making it clear what it is about. Either Avoiding dangerous climate change (2005 conference) or something like Avoiding dangerous climate change (policy objective). In the AFD Coastwise (talk · contribs) makes a good point that the subject is subtly different from Climate change mitigation: "The ADCC one covers the imperative of science and society to address climate change that would be dangers. The CCM article covers how to reduce those harms" there might be a title which makes that distinction clear. --Salix alba (talk): 08:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Rename it could even be renamed 'avoiding dangerous climate change conference' (though I wouldn't have thought such a conference is particularly noteworthy anyway) to make it clear it's about a conference. The current title is not encyclopedic, and the content duplicates several articles. My view is merge really, very few conferences would be worth their own article. SatansFeminist (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Split into Avoiding dangerous climate change (conference) (dealing with the conference, based on an old rev) and Dangerous climate change dealing with the international texts with an extremely restricted scope (who used the term). Add a redirect ADCC —> ADCC (c) with a hatnote.
I stand by the views I expressed at the AfD: in order of decreasing conviction strength,
  1. The current title ("avoiding dangerous climate change") is inferior to climate change mitigation if the article is understood with wide scope, because "dangerous" is somewhat POV; CCM (a neutral formulation) covers the same scope, really.
  2. The 2005 conference is notable enough for a standalone article.
  3. The terms "dangerous climate change" are somewhat notable in the context of international texts using them.
For that specific article I do not really like the "delete", "rename" etc. polling format that goes on at AfD or here because the actions to take might nontrivially depend on the desired result. For instance, if consensus is that my #3 is not notable enough to warrant an article (which I would not lose sleep over), the conference page might not need the DAB "(conference)" and could receive redirects from other pages + a hatnote pointing to CCM.
And I apologize for creating another section for discussion, I somehow did not see that RfC appear.Tigraan (talk) 10:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
I fully agree with User:AnotherNewAccount's comment on the title, below. Tigraan (talk) 09:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Revert - back to circa 2012, because if you just follow the cites and apply due WP:WEIGHT, search for the phrase is overwhelmingly about the conference and book from it, and the article was stable about that for circa 6 years. But now it looks like it lost focus and included many things that do not use the term, are not associated to that conference, and has become a WP:COATRACK for dupe of material of other articles. Revert. Markbassett (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Revert, move and merge: This page can really only stand alone as a discussion of the conference. The topic itself is covered at length in other articles already mentioned, and if there is any material here which isn't already present at Global warming or Climate change mitigation, it can be merged to those articles. The article should definitely be renamed to be explicitly about the conference, to avoid another round of this discussion. --Slashme (talk) 08:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Question: Do we have articles on other similar conferences to compare with? I can see potential for a single timeline article about a sequence of conferences. That could serve to create context. In the few cases where an individual conference was truly notable (not just for transient protest journalism, but for substantial impact, treaties, or similar) those conferences or agreements might justify their own articles. It appears, however that this was more of a "bridge the gap" effort between IPCC3 and IPCC4, intended to maintain some momentum. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I do not think this particular conference was "truly notable with substantial impact, treaties, or similar", and it was likely there to fill a gap. But the question is whether the conference is worth an article. There are articles in the main press, so it passes WP's notability criteria to my eyes.
If there were thousands of such conferences every year, I think WP:MILL would apply even in the presence of strong sources, but that is just not the case. Tigraan (talk) 10:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Passing mention of the conference in news articles the same week (25 Jan to 3 Feb 2005) is hardly convincing either: these articles are more about the conference subject than about the conference itself. So, it was a conference about a very important topic, and that topic got the press briefly interested enough to mention the conference, as in "We need more fillers, Paul, what can you find us going on with the global warming story this week?" That's not the stuff of an encyclopedia. The pertinent policy is wp:N(E). — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeadSongDog (talkcontribs)
Hmm, fair enough. Somehow I did not notice how close to each other (temporally) those articles were. Tigraan (talk) 15:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Revert years back, or at least restore the conference material and merge the non-conference material into Climate change mitigation, for the reasons I explained in the AfD. Additionally, there doesn't seem to be much evidence that "avoiding dangerous climate change" is an actual "thing" worthy of a dedicated article. It's fairly easy to hit Google Books or Scholar to look for books and papers that mention the phrase in passing, but I think that's a pretty poor indicator, quite frankly.
Politicians and policy-makers often develop, maintain and advocate policies and mantras, repeated in speeches, interviews and soundbites, that are nonetheless not entirely worthy of a dedicated article: "Reducing the national debt", "Increasing government efficiency", "Reducing child poverty" etc. Article titles like this are problematic POV titles because they imply inappropriately that such a policy or action is desirable. Even a "motherhood and apple pie" issue, such as "Finding a cure for cancer", could cause problems if the title invites advocacy for specific public policy measures, such as the provision of government money.
In general, I think any "active participle-noun"-type subjects ought to redirect to their relative nouns, as Reducing the risks of Asthma and Increasing incidence of skin cancer currently do. I see there's now some discussion on whether the conference itself is notable. I have no opinion on that. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Revert to being just about the conference (or even merge!) -- coatrack of an article as it is. Very POV title per User:AnotherNewAccount's arguments -- note that "Pro-life" and "Pro-choice" are terms that have appeared in print thousands of times more than "avoiding dangerous climate change" but they still are redirects to the philosophies that the terms represent rather than being articles unto themselves. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Revert/move to the article about conference. Please keep in mind that the title must be all-caps, since it is confefence name Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change: A Scientific Symposium on Stabilisation of Greenhouse Gases. Even the lede of the current article is WP:SYNTH. We already have several other forks to deal with: Climate change mitigation, Climate change mitigation scenarios, Climate action, - in addition to this one. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Actually that isn't All caps, it's Title case, but yes, that would be correct for an article about the conference. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Revert to the conference article of the two choices presented. Current article is not written as an encyclopedia article and doesn't seem to present information that is not adequately covered elsewhere. Klaun (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  • It seems that consensus is emerging to rename this article to Avoiding dangerous climate change (2005 conference). I would WP:BOLDly do it right now, but I read again the general sanctions warning at the top of this very talk page. Am I basically right here? I would be in favor of any editor performing the rename at this point, because it looks like consensus is to rename the article and strip the unrelated material from it. Jm (talk | contribs) 16:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I fail at reading comprehension. Sorry about that. Here, I'll try again:
With all the comments regarding how the conference itself may or may not merit its own article, should we relist this article at AfD? The general feeling I'm getting is that there really is no consensus to keep the article in its current form. Is it too soon to start wrapping it up and asking "where, exactly, do we go from here?" Jm (talk | contribs) 16:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I think it is best to wait for an admin closure here. The consensus seems to be to remove the coatrack material about the importance of "avoiding dangerous climate change", and restore the article back to being about the conference. Another poster suggested that the name should be capitalized in line with any proper noun, that is, Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change. An appropriate name could be Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change (2005 conference) as you suggested, or perhaps simply Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change (conference). I agree it's important to make it clear to the reader and any future editors that the locus of the article is about a conference. Now, whether the conference itself is notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia is a whole other discussion. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
It has been two weeks now, but there seems to be a fairly clear consensus that the article should not deal with CCM. However it is not clear whether an article about the conference should remain, and under which title. (FWIW, a capitalized title seems to me bette than my former suggestion of "(2005 conference)".)
I would propose to revert years back "boldly" (after a month or so of discussion, between the AfD and the RfC...), and immediately put the resulting article at AfD (with a helpful summary/links in the nomination so that contributors do not enter the jungle unprepared). The revert itself is fairly consensual, and it would be a better starting point for AfD discussion. Tigraan (talk) 12:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Revert to the conference version and possible merge with Climate change mitigation or another suitable article. AIRcorn (talk) 08:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Split as per Tigraan above. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge and/or Delete - (summoned by bot) Possibly merge with Climate change mitigation? This article is sorta silly. The title alone seem to suggest we're in violation of WP:NOTESSAY. How did this thing survive deletion? NickCT (talk) 17:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Revert/merge or delete Avoiding dangerous climate change isn't an encyclopedic topic. It isn't a thing on its own. To use Jsharpminor's wording, "[d]angerous climate change is a thing to be avoided, but it is not itself an article subject. 'Avoiding dangerous climate change' isn't a thing, and I would challenge anyone who says otherwise to prove it with Google search results". I disagree with the result of the AfD how the AfD was closed. There were three keep !votes. One claims that it "is definitely a thing" and is "not SYNTH" with no justification or reasoning for either. The next cites an essay without specifying which of its many points are relevant and also cites the previous discussion. I don't see any well-reasoned points in that discussion, but I could be missing something. The last keep !vote brings up the content and quality of writing in the article, which are irrelevant to the reasons given for deletion. Those last two !votes also "ask that the AfD flag be summarily removed", implying that their writers are unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy, and, not that that alone should discredit their opinions, it makes me trust those opinions less when they don't cite policy. I think the current title of this article is horrible. When I first saw this discussion, and even when I started writing this comment, hence the struck-out sentences above, I though that the problem was WP:SYNTH. When I considered "Climate change mitigation", though, I thought about the differences between those titles. I think the two main problems are with WP:NOUN, in that the word "avoiding" should be replaced with one (as in the other title's use of "mitigation"), and WP:NPOVTITLE, in that "dangerous" is an opinion and should be removed, even if sources agree with it. It isn't part of what the subject is; it's an adjective that should be kept separate from the name of the subject. When these issues are fixed, we get back to "Climate change mitigation", which is a much better title and one that follows policy. This article should be about the conference (or deleted if that conference isn't notable), and any extra material that doesn't overlap with that of "Climate change mitigation" should be moved there. KSFTC 20:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC closure requested[edit]

This RfC has been open for a month. Can we have an admin close it? I think consensus may have been established. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

  • I think that two ways came up as most popular. The first was the revert and the second was a complete scrapping of this article (as a merge or a delete). Maybe we need further discussion about which of these two, but nevertheless this RfC has lived its usability. Thus the admin could close as one of these two but without deciding between these two. If the answer to either or isn't easy, I could make a new RfC about it. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any arguments to get rid of this article. It should be made to be about the conference, and content about climate change mitigation should be moved to "Climate change mitigation". Whether there should be an article about the conference is a discussion for a separate AFD after this RFC is closed. Non-admins can close RFCs too, by the way. We just need someone uninvolved. KSFTC 02:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I think we can agree on this revision as the one to revert to, although three of the five references are broken links, along with the further reading link and about half of the external links, which makes me question the notability of the conference. Again, though, that's a discussion for an AFD. KSFTC 02:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

  • You're right, that discussion belongs at AfD. I don't know how I didn't even think of it. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Request for closure seconded. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a huge amount of experience with RFC, so I'm not sure why, but a bot removed the RFC template. The consensus is very clear, though, so I will revert the article to the revision I linked to above. If anyone thinks that the conference isn't notable, they can list the article at AFD. KSFTC 01:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Following AFD discussion (Feb 2016)[edit]

Thread withdrawn in favor of RfC discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This article was put to AfD in February 2016. It was closed after a bit less than three weeks as "no consensus" with the comment "No consensus for deletion, but consensus that something should be done editorially to fix the overlap with related articles. It's not clear from this discussion how to best proceed, though. Further discussion may be needed."

Maybe it would have been more practical to relist the AfD since there was ongoing discussion, but I am not sure of what the guidelines say, and anyways that is not DRV-worthy. A DR/N notice was posted (presumably by Mr.Magoo) but denied. So, here we are.

Pinging editors involved in the AfD: Jsharpminor (talk · contribs), Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs), William_M._Connolley (talk · contribs), Coastwise (talk · contribs), MaynardClark (talk · contribs), Shritwod (talk · contribs), Mr._Magoo_and_McBarker (talk · contribs), DMacks (talk · contribs), SatansFeminist (talk · contribs), AnotherNewAccount (talk · contribs).

There seemed to be no dispute of the fact that this article was originally about a specific conference before it turned into some kind of hub for articles related to climate change mitigation.

I stand by the views I expressed at the AfD: in order of decreasing conviction strength,

  1. That title (avoiding dangerous climate change) is inferior to climate change mitigation if the article is understood with wide scope, because "dangerous" is somewhat POV; CCM (a neutral formulation) covers the same scope.
  2. The 2005 conference is notable enough for a standalone article.
  3. The terms "dangerous climate change" are somewhat notable in the context of international texts using them.

Thus, I recommend to make so that:

  1. The current content is scrapped.
  2. Avoiding dangerous climate change (conference) (or a similar title) is created based on an old rev of the page, it is a stub article about the conference (and will probably remain a stub forever).
  3. Dangerous climate change (currently a redirect to here) is a short article about the use of the term in international relation speak.

I refrained to recommend "delete", "rename" etc. because the actions to take might nontrivially depend on the desired result. For instance, if consensus is against my #3 for lack of notability (which I would not lose sleep over), the conference page might not need the DAB "(conference)" and could receive redirects from other pages + a hatnote pointing to CCM. No need to fight against what should be done, the real issue is what we want to have in the end. Tigraan (talk) 10:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

  • It'll possibly result in no concensus again if you relist at AfD. AfD doesn't really deal with something like this even though this was first discovered and argued about there. I tried listing straight away at DRN since RFCs are a very vague tool which takes months to achieve a result if a result happens at all (RFCs result more in no concensus than AfDs). However the DRN was nigh instantly shut down as there hadn't been a months long discussion here yet. Now we're having it and possibly going back to DRN in a few months, judging from my experience with other contested RFC discussions... --Mr. Magoo (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • There is already a post-AfD discussion on-going for three days in the section above this one. I respectfully ask the original poster of this section to consider deleting this one, and to instead comment in that prior section. Coastwise (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The first change was good. I have edited the second one with a correct link, in the article. Coastwise (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)