Talk:Carbon source (biology)

Wiki Education assignment: Molecular Genetics

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Penimetsa12345 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Penimetsa12345 (talk) 15:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Need for a name change or a disambiguation page?

Between 1850 and 2019 the Global Carbon Project estimates that about 2/3 of carbon dioxide emissions have been caused by burning fossil fuels, and a little less than half of that has stayed in the atmosphere.

Historical (unrestrained) carbon budget: Cumulative contributions to the global carbon budget since 1850 illustrate how source and sink components have been out of balance, causing an approximately 50% rise in atmospheric CO₂.

Pinging User:RCraig09: I've now moved the two images that are related to climate change to the talk page for now. At this stage, the article is not about climate change. I've added a hatnote accordingly. But I think we need to rework this. It might be best to rename this article to carbon source (biology) and then have carbon source redirect to greenhouse gas emissions or to set up a disambiguation page that contains two entries: one for the biology concept and one for the climate change concept? EMsmile (talk) 13:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC) EMsmile (talk) 13:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Since this article has received an average of 13 views/day, I have no objection to a disambiguation page. The link to GHG emissions should be to the most appropriate section of that article. —RCraig09 (talk) 14:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the pageviews are very low indeed. When someone in future types in "carbon source" in the search field of Wikipedia, which term are they most likely looking for - the biology one or the climate change one? I suspect the latter. When I put "carbon source" into Google, it seems to mainly take me to climate change type pages. Our Wikipedia article comes out at the top but it refers to the heterotrophs/autotrophs thing but that's an outlier, isn't it? So I think that the current carbon source page should probably be renamed to become carbon source (biology). And we could create a page called carbon source (disambiguation). And the search of "carbon source" should be redirected to greenhouse gas emissions, where the word "carbon source" should appear in bold in the lead. Would this be workable like this? Pinging also User:ASRASR. EMsmile (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm OK with everything except forcing the bold phrase carbon source into the lead of GHG Emissions article. That's the tail wagging thet dog. Just link to an appropriate section of the GHG Emissions article. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

OK, agreed. I've written on the talk page of greenhouse gas emissions now about how to mention "carbon source" there. I'll wait a few more days to see if more opinions come in and then I'd rename this page to carbon source (biology) and set up a disambiguation page for carbon source (disambiguation). EMsmile (talk) 07:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I've renamed (moved) this article to carbon source (biology) now. Next step will be to set up a redirect from carbon source to greenhouse gas emissions. I think a disambiguation page (carbon source (disambiguation)) is not necessary as this article has such small page views. We could have a hatnote at greenhouse gas emissions instead. Or perhaps a disambiguation page is better as it does away with the need for a hatnote at greenhouse gas emissions? I am undecided. Pinging RCraig09 and User:Chidgk1 for advice. EMsmile (talk) 11:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I favor a hatnote at GHGEs. (There would be only two items on a disambiguation page, with one having >30 times as many views as the other.) —RCraig09 (talk) 14:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The Redirect at Carbon source should point to the top of the GHGEs article, so that readers can see the hatnote. —RCraig09 (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe we need neither a hatnote nor a disambiguation page as the article carbon source (biology) really has very low pageviews (around 20 per day). I feel it would give it too much prominence so have such a hatnote at a highly popular article such as greenhouse gas emissions (600 pageviews per day). But I don't feel strongly about it. If you prefer a hatnote, would you like to add one in? But I think it's useful to have the redirect point directly to the right section within the article. People can still scroll up later to look for a hatnote. EMsmile (talk) 07:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)