Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climate change

Merge or rename Instrumental temperature record?

I've started a discussion on the talk page of Instrumental temperature record: the proposal on the table is to either merge it into global surface temperature or to change its title so that it becomes clearer what's in the article (e.g. to drop the term "record" in the title). The article gets around 140 pageviews per day, tendency is increasing. Pageviews are here. Please join in the brainstorming here if you have time. Thanks! EMsmile (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Tonlé Sap#Requested move 10 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tonlé Sap#Requested move 10 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans 17:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help the Wikimedia Foundation better understand how on-wiki collaborations work

The Campaigns team at the Wikimedia Foundation is interested in learning from diverse editors that have experience joining and working on WikiProjects, Campaigns, and other kinds of on-wiki collaboration. We need your help:

Take a survey about your experience with collaborations: with this Google Form
Share examples of Collaborations or WikiProjects that have worked for you: m:Campaigns/WikiProjects

Whatever input you bring to the two spaces will help us make better decisions about next steps beyond the current tools we support. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

Should the infobox template for countries be expanded to include greenhouse gas emissions? See the request at Template talk:Infobox country#Request for comment on greenhouse emissions

20WattSphere (talk) 12:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should soot be merged into black carbon?

So far I have proposed and one person has opposed - I think this is important enough to need more opinions at Talk:Black_carbon#Merge_proposal if you have time Chidgk1 (talk) 12:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfD discussion: Climate finance in the United States

There is currently a deletion discussion about this article, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. I have a connection to it so will not be engaging in the discussion, but wanted others to be aware it is happening. FULBERT (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education and Climate Finance

Hi everyone! I'm helping to coordinate an initiative at Wiki Education where we are teaching new editors to write about climate finance. This is includes individuals, organizations, and legislation. It is inspired by the Climate finance article. @Clayoquot raised some important concerns about greenwashing and sources. The intention of this work is to use high quality sources to describe the topics above. I welcome any feedback, suggestions of sources, or support for the editors working on this. I'm not working directly with the editors, but am happy to answer questions. Thanks! Will (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a very specific scope to teach new editors to write in. What are the articles it is planned for new editors to be working on, and what articles are being used as their model examples? CMD (talk) 06:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to ensure that everyone has the full overview of discussions so far, see also here on the discussion page of the AfD discussion of Climate finance in the United States. My concern was that if we guide new editors to the creation of new articles that are essentially sub-sub-sub articles then we might waste some potential as those kinds of articles usually linger at low pageviews. I think it would be more impactful to flesh out existing articles like the one on climate finance. Or if you want it to be country specific then rather flesh out the existing CCC articles (CCC = climate change in country X). - Overall, it's exciting if Wiki Ed and students/newbies/trainees takes on climate change topics! Do you have a particular funder for this effort? A particular university? EMsmile (talk) 09:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know WikiEd don’t usually nominate articles for good status because the wait for a reviewer can be long, but if you are hoping to run this initiative for long enough perhaps one editor could nominate climate finance and a later one pick it up if there was too long a wait for a reviewer? Or one editor could nominate it and one more expert in the subject review it? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also quite rightly new editors are discouraged from editing articles already rated good. But as I see I wrote little or nothing about climate finance in climate change in Turkey I will be happy to work with any editor who would like to add such info. Preferably one who knows something about finance, unlike myself. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Will for engaging with us and for bringing new potential volunteers! I'm another person who always recommends that new climate editors work on existing articles. It's easier, they learn more, the impact is much higher in terms of pageviews, our existing articles need a lot of updating, and it keeps people out of AfD which saves everyone stress. Another way to look at it is that if an expert is interested in contributing, I like to ask, "What knowledge do you have that you want to share?". I imagine they have deeper subject matter knowledge than is needed to make lists of government/corporate announcements. Can you help us understand what the group's strengths are? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable charts re greenhouse gas emissions

A) example of Tom.schulz chart

B) RCraig09 chart

Pinging @Tom.schulz: User:Tom.schulz (found on LinkedIn and listed as cofounder on his investing company website) is a 40-edit editor who has been placing Chart A in various articles. There has been some discussion at Talk:GHG emissions but Tom.schulz has not participated, probably because he is inactive on Wikipedia.

Though the general idea of variable-width bar charts is genius, I think his particular charts (see Wikimedia uploads) are unsuitable. They have far too much detail for most Wiki articles, their fonts are tiny, and they include his name as chart creator, two mentions of his investment company, and a link to that investment company website. (Data source=IEA, which is totally OK)

I generated the Chart B which I think is appropriate in content and form. I'm considering removing charts like Chart A from all instances on en.Wikipedia, but I wanted to check here first for consensus, before taking such broad action. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you and support your proposed removal of those charts. There could be ways how the charts of Tom Schulz could be improved (like taking out all that text below the chart), or perhaps your version is already the improved version, pretty much. I hope he's going to react to your ping because it would be a pity to lose his potential future contributions to Wikipedia. (Some of the less experienced editors don't have e-mail notifications turned on and thus never see such a ping. I guess we could reach out to him via his Linkedin page, since he links to it from his Wikipedia user profile, maybe (?)). EMsmile (talk) 21:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for flagging this. I removed it from Climate change mitigation. For the places where it is relevant, I suggest editing it to remove the names and the tiny text at the bottom. The tiny text can go in the image description on WIkimedia Commons and/or in the image caption on Wikipedia. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

B is cleaner and easier to understand. You can immediately see text that says rectangle area shows total emissions even in thumbnail format, whereas the writing in A is too small. Bogazicili (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, B is much better. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also have to add, whenever these annual emissions graphs are used, cumulative emissions should also be taken into account.[1] I find the graphs above to be rather Eurocentric or Western-centric. Emissions in the atmosphere do not get reset every year, they accumulate. Bogazicili (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This section is about one graphic versus another. Discussing cumulative emission is appropriate at Talk:Greenhouse_gas_emissions#New_graph_too_detailed_for_the_lead?. Briefly, the cumulative-versus-annual-per-person distinction would be very confusing to lay readers (whether or not they knew they are confused). —RCraig09 (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done I've basically removed the chart from English-language Wikipedia. I understand the concern not to lose future contributions. However, he manages an investment company and his only Wikimedia uploads are five ~annual uploads of updated data. The kind of information that he presents is best presented in list form in existing "List" articles—which is mainly where he placed his chart. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for recommendations for writing "Climate change in X country" articles

Hi all

I'm planning on surveying which countries/regions etc do and do not have climate change article e.g Climate change in the United States and then writing some of them. I've seen the list Wikipedia:WikiProject_Climate_change/Recommended_sources#Country-specific_sources which is very helpful, but does anyone know of any others that might be useful that would provide overviews?

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 11:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@John Cummings I guess Climate Trace will be estimating 2023 GHG in the next few weeks. I just noticed we don’t have info about Climate change in Libya. That might be interesting - for example I wonder if it is because the government(s) are too busy with their crisis that they have not ratified the Paris Agreement. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@John Cummings: There are World Bank reports. I used this in Turkey. There are also IPCC reports. If you go to IPCC AR6 WG2, regions start with Africa in Chapter 9. Bogazicili (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does this Wikiproject have anything like a redlist?

Hi all

I've written about quite a few climate related topics over the years but never really been to this Wikiproject before. I just wanted to ask, is there a list of 'most wanted articles' or a 'redlist' or anything similar? It obviously wouldn't need to be anything as comprehensive as Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Redlist index but a simple page of missing articles would be super helpful. I'm happy to help build one if one doesn't already exist and I've missed it :)

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 12:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great - on the main project page scroll down to “Requested articles from redirects” Chidgk1 (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chidgk1 thanks very much for your reply, can I check that I have understoofd correctly? That there is no 'redlist' as such, apart from the 4 articles there that are currently redirects. John Cummings (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is right - but now we know you are keen we may be tempted to add some to ‘Needs an article` just above the redirects! Speaking for myself I mostly write about Turkey, where I live, but sometimes dabble in more general articles. But I don’t feel competent or motivated for anything to do with economics, such as Economics of climate change mitigation, which is in a bad state. So for example I cannot understand, if someone was adding up the costs and benefits for Turkey would it be correct accounting to include the considerable health co-benefits from cleaning up our smoky air? Or does that not count if cleaning up the local pollution is the main objective? The article just says ‘including them in studies can result in higher or lower mitigation cost estimates’ not whether they should be included or not. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@John Cummings: I perceive that there is a general trend to combine (merge) articles covering concepts; the only article I can think of that's "new" (2021+) is Extreme event attribution (attribution science), which could use further expansion. Specific country-related articles (you mention in the preceding section) might be an option if you're looking to start an article anew. But frankly, I think the greatest need is to prune and update existing articles. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again RCraig09 can I check something? Where do you think that this want to 'prune' articles comes from? Is it simply a lack of capacity within the current community working on climate change or something else? Thanks again, John Cummings (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a targeted list of articles in mind. It's just that I perceive various articles in this 23-year-old encyclopedia could use updating, which would include removing some outdated content. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course :) Thanks again RCraig09. John Cummings (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested to John that starting "Climate change in country X" articles would be worthwhile. I agree that updating existing articles should be the focus of most of our efforts. My thinking on the "Climate change in country X" articles is that a few times I've seen new editors from developing countries try to create them, fail, and get discouraged. It's much easier for new editors to expand an article after an experienced editor gets through the initial hump of creating it. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @RCraig09. In particular I think some global articles have too much out of date detail about the United States. For example I was just looking at Gas stove which tells us “The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) ran tests in 2014 of cooktop energy transfer efficiency, simulating cooking while testing what percentage of a cooktop's energy is transferred to a test block. Gas had an efficiency of 43.9%, with ±0.5% repeatability in the measurement.” Well I for one have no idea what “±0.5% repeatability” means or whether 10 years later it is relevant in my country. I think the readers eyes will just glaze over at “43.9%” - I mean why not simply “Less than half of the heat of the burning gas is transferred to the food.”? Chidgk1 (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chidgk1 thanks very much, I agree this is important also, I wonder if there is a good way to flag articles needing updates which are related to climate change in some way. John Cummings (talk) 19:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@John Cummings If you scroll down to “Ongoing tasks” on the main page of the project you will see a link to https://bambots.brucemyers.com/cwb/bycat/Climate_change.html which shows articles which have been tagged as needing improvement in various ways. Unfortunately I don`t know a way of sorting the whole lot by importance, but as you can see you can sort the articles tagged for a particular problem by importance. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RCraig09 I guess my only other question would be if this Wikiproject did have a redlist what we want it to look like? E.g for my own interest I made this list of existing and missing 'climate change in x country' articles User:John_Cummings/Documentation/Climate_change_in_x_articles_redlist. I wonder if there are any other topics that could added. John Cummings (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure we need separate articles for each tiny country (they could have a sentence or 2 in a more general article) but, wow, thanks I did not realise before now that we don`t seem to have Climate change in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which I guess must be pretty important. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chidgk1 Yes agreed its interesting how many are missing and there should be some prioritisation. I think that articles about climate change for small countries is likely to be extremely relevant if that country is a low lying island. I wonder also about having a table for if the main country article mentions climate change? If feel like that would be extremely impactful and we have the sources at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Climate_change/Recommended_sources#Country-specific_sources to provide a few sentences for every country. John Cummings (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, the gaps that we have in this domain are around existing articles, not having a clear and direct line of connection with climate change. For example, I recently started working on Agrochemical, which was both extremely limited in scope but also not dealing with its connections to the core concepts related to climate change.

For example, in the Small to Medium edits page, there is just a huge gap in geographically specific coverage that should be happening in city and region articles everywhere: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Climate_change/Small_to_medium_tasks#local. I think most of us here are of the "go to where the readers already are" kind of editors, not "create more articles" editors. I think part of this, is that even as we create lots of new articles -- the people searching for climate specific articles are likely to already be involved in climate action, whereas the folks that need to learn the most are folks looking at something else (i.e. extreme weather), etc.

The one sector/grouping that I think we need a lot of articles is in climate tech (i.e. climate dioxide removal, specific technologies for hard to abate sectors, etc). Sadads (talk) 19:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you're saying makes a lot of sense. My one quibble is with your last point - I spend a lot of time removing outdated predictions of glory for climate tech ideas that went nowhere.(latest example). We are not fully keeping up with this junk even in our high-priority existing articles, and in low-priority ones we are years behind. Most new tech ideas fail; the concepts that have a reasonable chance of having an impact on climate are already covered through broader articles like Green steel. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding summary of climate change to country articles

Hi all

Today I added a summary of the impact of climate change on Italy (taken from Climate change in Italy) to the article on Italy, a few hours later the section was removed with the edit summary

generic alarmist subsection removed. Seasonal flooding in Venice has been occurring for centuries and is not solely caused by human-induced climate change. The rest of the subsection was completely generic climate change alarmism, applicable to any country article by changing Italy to any other country name

If anyone has any suggestions for improving the information I added or any other thoughts I started a discussion on Talk:Italy#Information_on_the_impact_of_climate_change_on_Italy.

I would really like to try to make this work as a section, I think that there should be a subsection about climate change on all country articles.

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with you and have come across similar pushback on other occasions. But for less watched country articles, I've often managed to make my edits about climate change stick. I sometimes used an excerpt from the CCC article. We had a long discussion previously about this at the Bangladesh and India articles if I remember correctly. I can't remember exactly which articles we managed to make it stick but e.g. Kenya has a bit on climate change that looks alright. Also South Africa. It's usually in the section on "geography".

I once tried to get a general consensus going at the WikiProject Countries page but failed (see a discussion which I had about this 4 years ago here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries/Templates#In_which_section_is_climate_or_climate_change_meant_to_be_included? and also here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries/Archive_13#How_much_content_about_climate_change_is_warranted_in_country_articles%3F). Nowadays I would do it on a case by case basis but I would expect that this is getting easier and easier now. There is certainly ample precedent now where country articles do include climate change content, and a wikilink to the CCC article. If you want to rekindle the discussion at the WikiProject Countries talk page, please go ahead. I would support that. EMsmile (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has come up many times.....best solution thus far is incorporation into current section with a few sentences as seen at Canada#Climate. The problem we come across is a random generic section that regurgitates the same gibberish on page after page....that is... increase flooding, increased drought etc etc. Two or three sentences incorporated throughout an existing section on climate would be the best course of action if it's not just generic text. The country project talks about main article fixation like this at WP:COUNTRYSECTIONS. A section should summarize the main parent article Climate of Italy in an appropriate manner over summarizing every sub article on climate about Italy.Moxy🍁 22:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:EMsmile

EMsmile can you read over H:TRANSDRAWBACKS...... I would imagine this is why these get deleted all the time. Moxy🍁 23:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need to create Climate policy of the European Union?

While starting the climate policy article I noticed that we have Climate policy of China and Climate change policy of the United States, but the above redirects to EU energy policy?

I suspect we need an EU climate policy article, as obviously climate policy overlaps but is different than energy, for example the Common Agricultural Policy is important. If so should it be created from scratch or perhaps by renaming, updating and broadening European Union climate and energy package or European Green Deal? I am not sure whether any part of the green deal which improves biodiversity might contradict EU climate goals and I have not read https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1114677/full Having said that I am hoping one of you EU people would actually do the work. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was renaming Temperature record of the last 2,000 years -> Temperature record (1 AD – present) a good idea?

User @Treetoes023 renamed Temperature record of the last 2,000 years to Temperature record (1 AD – present).

I find the new name passingly strange. It is not idiomatic English. Describing the article to somebody I'd use a phrase similar to "last two thousand years" or "most recent two thosand years". As opposed to making the listener do the cognitive work of translating and extracting the import of "1 AD - present".

The edit summary is like this:

17:21, 7 November 2024 Treetoes023 talk contribs moved page Temperature record of the last 2,000 years to Temperature record (1 AD – present) (Make shorter (WP:CONCISE, WP:PRECISE): This article is specifically about the temperature record from 1 AD to the present, and since saying "(1 AD – present)" is shorter than saying "of the last 2,000 years", I see no reason not to move the article. Feel free to revert my move if you disagree.)

What do people think? -- M.boli (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The move should definitely have been discussed in advance. Scientifically, it's unduly specific (1 AD is a single year), and I agree it's clumsy in its language and choice of "AD" (rather than CE), with AD seeming to be deprecated in recent years for reasons of religious neutrality. Temperature record in the Common Era would have been both more appropriate and more graceful. This discussion should probably be on the article's Talk Page. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the new title. Thanks for the alert. I've now started a discussion about it on the talk page of that article. EMsmile (talk) 09:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Mary Mellor

Hello all, I've been working on a draft for ecofeminist Draft:Mary Mellor for ages, and am getting stuck a) due to my own time but also b) I don't know very much about ecofeminism, so it's a challenge to ensure I'm getting context right. I wondered if anyone here was already familiar with her specialism and might be able to lend a hand. her books have been widely reviewed, so i've been finding reviews of each and re-writing that in. All help greatly appreciated (& I'm cross posting to Women in Red too). Many thanks Lajmmoore (talk) 12:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how she is related to this project but I made a couple of tweaks and suggest you fill in some of the infobox and add projects to the talk page of the article so it may show up on their project pages. You could also ask on the Greenham Common talk page to see if any of her old mates might upload to Wikimedia Commons any pic of her they might have in a photo album in the attic if it is not too embarrassing for her! Chidgk1 (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]