Talk:IPCC Third Assessment Report

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Environment / Climate change  (Rated Start-class)
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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Climate change task force.

(William M. Connolley 17:26, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)) I've created this page because I want to link to it. At the momemnt I'm a bit unsure how big it should be. I think that most text should be on the IPCC page as at present.

Titular acronym[edit]

This shouldn't have an acronym for a title. I'm just not sure whether to move it to Third Assessment Report, IPCC Third Assessment Report, or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report. I'm leaning toward the second. Opinions? —Simetrical (talk) 06:08, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 09:46, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Well as long as the short form remains to link to I don't much mind. But... the first is out (other bodies might also issue third reps), the second has an acronym in the title :-) and the third is wordy but probably best.

The second includes an acronym, of course, but the third is just insanely wordy. I mean, seriously: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report. Forget it, I'm going with the second. —Simetrical (talk) 23:46, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Stub type[edit]

(William M. Connolley 09:46, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Re the stub type: there is some history on that; Icairns changed it. I thought sci was better than geo. Possibly (if stub types are to proliferate) we could have a report-stub too. Or an intergovernmental bodies stub. OR a climate stub. I couldn't decide so did nothing.

Nevertheless, climatology has no relation to geography, not by any stretch of the imagination. I have to wonder what was going through Icairns' head.
Report-stub is too narrow, and intergovernmental-bodies-stub is way too narrow. Climate, I think, also probably doesn't make it; the stub categories page says that new stubs should be created only for categories with a hundred pages or more, although that rule seems to be completely ignored (Bush-stub?!).
Ah, I have it! The IPCC was founded by the UN, right? We can use the UN-stub! Or do you think the connection is too tenuous? —Simetrical (talk) 23:58, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 21:13, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)) There are quite a lot of climate pages: glossary of climate change (and that only includes the ch ones, by and large)
Seems to me like rather a lot of those are only tangentially related to climate, and wouldn't deserve a climate-stub tag if they were stubs. But I've broadened the UN-stub, so now it's definitely suitable for use for this page. —Simetrical (talk) 22:14, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)


I tried to fill this out as much as possible, make it a stand-alone article with links to other subjects (including "See Also" as not including things referenced or listed in the article, and as many inline references/links to other wiki pages as possible in the article), and for it to be accurate and descriptive. I included references to the WGs that handle different subjects, named for what they described the groups as being on their "about" page. For example, their current organization lists 3 WG and the TF, I tried to pull out short descriptions based upon what they said. Trouble is, their own link for WG III isn't working....... Sln3412 07:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Canonical IPCC citations[edit]

See Talk:IPCC Third Assessment Report/citation for citation forms and data.

~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

As discussed at Talk:Global warming#Proposed IPCC citation, I have worked out (and hopefully debugged! but feel free to check) a set of canonical citations (references, actually), with working links, for the principal IPCC documents as demonstated below. If there are no objections I will upgrade the existing citations in this article to this format. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Updated forms. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't look like anyone is much concerned about this article, so as long as I am working on the citations I may also do any other straightening that seems necessary. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. I have also rewritten the lede to remove some unnecessary material, and elaborated some of the bare urls that were posing as citations. The latter are a little klunky-looking, but no one wanted to bother with a reflist before so I am not going to feel bad about this. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Re edit war[edit]

William M. Connolley, Vsmith, and anyone else: Quite aside from any other good reason for blocking, I think this edit, adding "title=Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report" to a citation, ought to be allowed. It seems to be a good faith attempt to clear one of the "Missing or empty title=" error messages that now plague us. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The ips were blocked for abuse per WP:Block evasion - anyone may re-instate the edit (make it their own) if they deem it valid. Vsmith (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
You and William seemed to be going at it so hard at it I was fearful of getting run over. One yellow smoke, coming up. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)