Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climate change

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stringy plant.svg
Small evergreen.svg
Ornamental tree.svg
Large evergreen.svg
Multystem tree.svg
General Tree.svg
Groundcover pattern.svg
Main Participants Popular
Style guide Get started
with easy edits

New Wikimedian in Residence[edit]

Hello all!

Let me introduce Tatjana Baleta, who started as a Wikimedian in Residence at the Global System Insitute in Exeter. With a background in conservation and science communication, she'll be engaging students and academics in Exeter (and beyond), to contribute to Wikipedia. The project was set up together with Clayoquot and Sadads, and has been a few years in the making. Misinformation on this topic can be really damaging, so I'm really excited to get more expert eyes involved!

We're in the initial stage of training and scoping. If you have ideas about important gaps, biases or opportunities to make articles less technical, feel free to drop her a note.

This residency occurs simultaneous with Wikipedia:Meetup/SDGs/Communication of environment SDGs, which engages senior academics around the world. We'll try our best to train people well before they edit, so that the volunteer community won't be overwhelmed. If anything goes wrong, feel free to contact me or Tatjana.

Femke (talk) 17:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome! Feel free to stay in touch with me and others at meta:Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fantastic. Welcome aboard, Tatjana! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Femke and hello everyone! Looking forward to working with you all! TatjanaBaleta (talk) 14:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Welcome also from my side, I look forward to collaborating with you. I think we are both going to train new editors from time to time so I'd be keen to compare notes on that. For example, I have created some simple editing tutorial videos which are available on my YouTube channel. They are nothing fancy. They might even have to be redone eventually with the new Vector 2022 (I've just yesterday switched over to the new look myself). I am curious: are you using existing videos for training or planning to create your own? Should these be shared on Wikimedia Commons, or somewhere else, or would they just clog up storage space? I've also got a large-ish powerpoint presentation for training purposes which can go hand in hand with such training videos. Happy to share and learn from others how they do their trainings. And the best training at the end of the day is "learning by doing". EMsmile (talk) 16:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for sharing these, EMsmile ! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:41, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for raising those questions re: training videos - we're still in the process of working these details out, but will be sure to keep you in the loop! TatjanaBaleta (talk) 09:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for sharing these from me too! - I'll share them with my teammates, as we start our work on researching and inputting climate action information. @ AnnetteCSteps (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Upcoming Editathon[edit]

Hi all, just wanted to leave an FYI note about the upcoming editathon at the Global Systems Institute as part of this WiR, happening on the 26th of January '23. Myself, Femke and Clayoquot will be training some new editors that work in the climate space, so you'll likely see a few edits from new editors around.

With their climate knowledge we hope it will be a productive session, but if you notice any serious issues please feel free to reach out to me. We'll be hosting more editathons with similar audiences this year and hope to facilitate some useful contributions. Thanks! TatjanaBaleta (talk) 14:59, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed collaboration to add science-based content, resources, quotes and more on climate mitigation.[edit]

Hi all,

I'm a former environmental data/outreach scientist turned into a climate action scientist, who founded and leads the nonprofit org Climate Steps, which is all about answering the question "What can I do to fight climate change?" I also am on the Board and am content lead for Earth Hero, a growing-in-popularity climate action app. Climate Steps has been collecting science-based mitigation information and mentoring action for 6 years (focused equally on the relative impacts of different actions and how to take steps), and Earth Hero for three (focused on describing each specific action and providing how-to tips.) CSteps was approached by a couple Wikimedians from WMF and WikiCred about collaborating, and as we've talked, I totally agree. We each research similar content, but put it on different platforms in different styles. It would be great to combine the research, editing and some writing efforts!

So I am somewhat familiar with Wikipedia, in that about 17? years ago now, I advised on the Encyclopedia of Life and was curator for some of its info, which also entailed doing some wiki-thons, and being trained on Wikipedia at the Smithsonian. But I'm a little rusty! So forgive my mistakes as I relearn how to edit.

But I wanted to share with you two invited proposals that I've submitted to WikiCred and WMF, and I hope to turn in another one here in March. I didn't have a chance to share and ask for feedback before submittal, because I did them all in a rush after helping my father start to set up long term care. (And then I ran into problems with proxy servers.) But I would love your comments now, and what aspects of this appeal to those working in WikiProject Climate Change.

The stress of both proposals is on the research. The WMF Rapid Project one is to bring in core resources for climate mitigation, while the WikiCred one is larger and more involved in help rapidly build up 1) more quality knowledge on the impacts of individual climate action - which can be quite impactful (fighting some misinformation in the media about that); and 2) create a couple subpages to the individual climate action page and climate mitigation pages. Plus and link many other existing pages back to climate change and climate action. People have a lot of questions about climate action - and will more and more. It's very important to get the useful information out there. It's not so much on How-to tips (I read the talk section below), but on what steps are important. Earth Hero instead is a great place to put the specific how-to tips, so it's best to keep sending that info there. CSteps has more of a narrative, story-telling platform. But we need research, so this would be a great collaboration for us too.

Sorry for this being so long, but here are the two proposals. @Phoebe, I loved your talk, and thought you may like this. Ideas on how to move this collaboration forward, even if we don't get funded are welcome. @Clayoquot, @EmSmile I have come across your work as well, and would be interested in your suggestions and perhaps help in coordinating the work. Thanks! @AnnetteCSteps.

WMF, Rapid:

WikiCred: AnnetteCSteps (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi AnnetteCSteps, thanks for reaching out and good luck with your two proposals and your work in general! There is so much work to do on climate change info that it's a matter of "the more the merrier"! My climate change editing work is done as part of this project currently (and until mid 2024). A lot of my work involves editing the English Wikipedia climate change related articles, either by myself or with external content experts and of course together with the other Wikipedians. A lot of my project's work involves currently the IPCC AR 6 report and "translating" their academic language into something that users can easily understand. The IPCC reports are basically massive literature reviews, so personally I have no need for additional lists of resources (i.e. publications) at this point. I am also not that interested in quotes at this point but other people might find a compilation of quotes very useful. So at this stage, I am unsure about immediate areas of collaboration with you. My focus is on editing Wikipedia articles with regards to updating content and improving readability. I think this doesn't overlap with your efforts which is more on compiling resources and quote if I understood your proposals correctly? If you want to discuss more on specific details you can also reach out to me via the e-mailing function (see at the bottom of my user profile page). EMsmile (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What does WikiCred stand for? EMsmile (talk) 15:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Credibility of content. Here it is: [[1]]. First, I should add that I was just rewarded the Rapid Grant, so we're on board now! Basically I wanted to reach to let you know and coordinate, so in terms of bringing in resources, I don't overlap with what you do (as the IPCC is a big resource for me too); and perhaps a brief discussion of what type of literature you aim for from that (beyond what I see). Also, I want to create a 'main credible resources' page), like is done for WikiProject Vaccine Safety and some for PCC's Agriculture Task Force, with key background resources for main topics within individual mitigation that other Wikimedians can use for initial background references. The quotes are really a side efforts, and we're doing mostly just because CSteps has quotes in a database, Earth Hero does too, and WikiQuotes is gathering quotes, so we want to just pool them all into one database. (We use them on our own websites and apps.) But the main thrust is getting the key articles behind the science of grassroots mitigation in, such as behavior change and how neighbors influence neighbors, what science has found about the impact of commenting on public regulations, the pros and cons against civil disobedience in the climate sphere, can regular folks affect industry behavior? and is consumer choice actually impactful and in so which arenas? Things like that. The second proposal above, which I'll hear about early next year, is to focus on editing and writing for Food and Agricultural mitigation actions individuals can take, but I'll bring that up more later if funded. Thanks for the welcome, and I look forward to running into you now and then--AnnetteCSteps (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with EMsmile about the more the merrier :) Feel free to ask for feedback here on your plans about what articles you're planning to update. Sometimes the people in this WikiProject have suggestions about sources or know of other articles that already have relevant content. Good luck with the transition for your father. Best, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! on all counts.--AnnetteCSteps (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pinging @TatjanaBaleta. She's the Wikimedia Visiting Fellow at the Global Systems Institute. May be some overlap as well. Sounds great :). Social science is often a bit neglected on Wikipedia, so this may really bridge a gap. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the ping @Femke, and great to e-meet you @AnnetteCSteps. I'm working with students and researchers at the GSI to add and update climate change information on Wikipedia, and would be happy to explore synergies with you on mitigation and climate action topics. I also have an interest in developing updated source lists for editing on climate change. Perhaps we could arrange to chat further? TatjanaBaleta (talk) 11:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds fantastic. we (Mark and I) dive in in January, and before we start the lists, we would like to chat first with folks to help set priorities and make sure we're covering the bases. I was even hoping perhaps for a group meeting, after I kindof compile some of the feedback I've gotten and what we see as priorities. So would love to chat further with you. AnnetteCSteps (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the great @TatjanaBaleta. We were asked to wait to implement the grant until after today, so tomorrow we'll be diving in. Lotsof discussion to be had. We actually will be working on several different projects through two different pilot grants: references, quotables, food/food-waste and agricultural climate actions for individuals, and actions for African activists. Focusing on key sources especially that are good science-based overviews of subjects and thus can be referenced by others easily to help lead discussions. Looking forward to chatting about priorities and ideas.
Still remembering how to use Wikipedia - it's been a decade since I've been on with projects (my username didn't pop up again.) Two folks in CSteps will also be joining, and I need to get them set up too. But it's coming back to me. Cheers!@AnnetteCSteps. 31 January 2023 (UTC) AnnetteCSteps (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just want to chime in here and introduce myself. I’m Mark Stewart, aka Loupgrru, and I haven’t done a lot of editing on Wikipedia, really just grammatical issues and filling in missing words that I noticed here and there over the last ten years, very infrequently. This is my first major involvement. I’m an English teacher with a little experience in journalism, and I’ve been focusing on how collaborative communities can improve many aspects of our lives for the last ten years, including reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I began writing for a couple of years ago, and have developed their section on the relationship between community and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions since then.
I’ve very happy and excited to be involved in the two projects with Wikipedia that Annette mentioned. I too have to deal with a learning curve for Wikipedia citation procedures, and ask for everyone’s patience as I learn how to do this. Loupgrru (talk) 03:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Loupgrru, thanks for getting involved. Welcome! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, @ClayoquotClayoquot! Loupgrru (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi All,
Both pilot projects have been funded by Wikimedia (one WMF and one WikiCred.) The first one - compiling key climate action references (and quotables) across 3 organizations (4 hopefully) in WikiSource and WikiQuotes, and helping create a key overviews reference page here, starts this week. (slowly starts this week); the second grant covers research and adding in information about impactful food/food-waste/and agriculture actions that individuals can take. That one starts Feb 8th. See links above. Both are worked on through the spring at least, via a team of 4 part-timers from Climate Steps. More info to come, but one thing I'd love to have is a meeting of minds on what holes in the Food/Ag action sphere need to be filled in re: climate actions. A number of individual climate actions are impactful in the personal, social, political, and industry-related spheres - it's just applying them and finding new ones in the food/ag area.
Very much looking forward to working with you all on this! AnnetteCSteps (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @AnnetteCSteps, congratulations on receiving funding! Looking forward to seeing the source lists for climate action. Re: Food/Ag, you've probably seen the WikiProject Climate change/Agriculture Task Force page, could be a place to start. TatjanaBaleta (talk) 07:52, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Climate reparations article needed[edit]

Right now, "Climate reparations" is a redirect to "Climate ethics." Here is a start on an actual article. The article could be a useful DYK next month, to provide background and context for COP 27. Oliveleaf4 (talk) 05:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Oliveleaf4 - thanks for raising this - would you be happy for me to add it to my list as a possible task for editathons? (I'm the Wikimedian in Residence for climate at the Global Systems Institute, so I might be able to pull in some extra hands, and possibly expert guidance for this article). TatjanaBaleta (talk) 06:16, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Oliveleaf4 your draft text looks good but do we really need a new article for this; wouldn't it be better to integrate it into either climate ethics or climate justice? I hadn't seen the climate ethics article before. The climate justice is fairly OK but also needs further work to make it more understandable. In general, I hesitate to start up new articles when we have so many existing ones about climate change topics that need further work & fleshing out. EMsmile (talk) 09:37, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see Oliveleaf4 moved the draft to Climate reparations in November. It's a useful new article - thanks for starting it! A summary of the topic would also be good within Climate justice. BTW I have boldly redirected Climate ethics to Climate justice. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Clayoquot, I think your bold redirect from Climate ethics to Climate justice was a very good idea. Thanks. EMsmile (talk) 12:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello friends! Glad to see you have been working on this. I am only on wiki once in a while these days, so I am not in a position to build out finished, polished articles. My goal is to provide information and citations as I come across them. So if you think it's better to incorporate the information into existing articles instead of starting new ones, for the most part I'm happy to leave it to you.
Regarding the number of articles needing further work, I'll post below about what I've found working the cleanup queue. Oliveleaf4 (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks @Oliveleaf4! TatjanaBaleta (talk) 06:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would you like anything from Carbon Brief?[edit]

As many of you know, Carbon Brief is an excellent source of climate change information. I recently asked the people at Carbon Brief if they would be willing to release their content under a Wikipedia-compatible license, which would allow us to use their charts and copy/paste their text into Wikipedia articles without violating copyright.

They asked for a shopping list of specific articles and charts Wikipedia editors are interested in re-using, and will consider putting a Wikipedia-compatible license on those items. The only images they can release are charts created by Carbon Brief - they cannot release material from third parties.

At some point I plan to set up a page for Wikipedia editors to request content from Carbon Brief. For now, please reply to this post with any thoughts about:

  • URLs and titles of content you'd like Carbon Brief to release
  • links to the Wikipedia article(s) you'd like to use them in

P.S. thanks to Femke and TatjanaBaleta for helping to move this idea forward. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For now, I can think of these two things:
1. Charts of the year when 1.5 and 2 degree thresholds will be exceeded, according to the various models. See this article. I am sure that multiple articles could benefit from those.
2. Pretty much every chart from this article. For instance, the chart which shows sensitivities of every CMIP6 model in order would be a hugely beneficial addition to the (rather dated) climate sensitivity article. The other charts could also be very helpful: i.e. the chart with observed vs. projected warming rates might be useful in either the general climate change article or one of the evidence ones. The chart of warming spread by scenario & model may be helpful for climate change scenario and/or Shared Socioeconomic Pathways article. And perhaps the chart showing all CO2 trajectories for every scenario in a single image could go into either one of those, the article on CO2 emissions, or both.
I'll likely think of further requests later on. Thanks again for making this possible! InformationToKnowledge (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great ideas, InformationToKnowledge! I'll ask them to take a look at this discussion. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would find it easier / more intuitive if Carbon Briefs released all of their own charts (i.e. those which they created) under a compatible licence and then if a batch upload to Wikimedia Commons could be carried out. Why do it piecemeal and only for those graphs that we specifically ask about? Our World in Data has done this, and someone organised a batch upload at some stage, and that's been very useful.
If you ask for a specific graph that we'd like to have, I thought of that earlier discussion we had about the climate change mitigation options graph by IPCC. See previous discussion on talk page of climate change mitigation here.
Another example I have is a graph that shows the dropping pH value due to ocean acidification together with the rising CO2 concentration on the same graph. I searched long and hard and eventually found one that I could use but I had to upload it to Wikipedia only (not to Wikimedia Commons) because it was a fair use licence (I didn't know before that that was even possible). I mean this file which I have used for ocean acidification: EMsmile (talk) 11:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good comments, thanks! I've let them know you added a comment here. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An update on this: Things are still moving on the Carbon Brief end, but slowly as lawyers as involved. Anyone who has worked with a corporate legal department can empathize. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your comments would be appreciated at Talk:Carbon credit#Rename to carbon allowance?. Thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments on working the cleanup queue[edit]

Would like to share what I've found when working on the cleanup queue.


Whatever you enjoy doing to improve the encyclopedia, just keep doing it.
Although one person can definitely make a difference, there is no magic plan or prioritization I can see that would work on the cleanup queue.
It might be worth taking a look to see if the articles needing "clarification" are just confusing, or if they are factually inaccurate.

Mostly I have done citation and link cleanup, or quick fixes. If I really knocked myself out during my spare time after work, once in a while I could either catch up with the articles needing cleanup, or bring the article backlog down by about one article. Once in a while I managed to bring the total number of issues for cleanup down a little bit.

However, focusing my efforts on bringing the cleanup queue numbers down meant I had to skip the articles that needed really significant cleanup, like the articles with long lists of citations. The articles needing extensive cleanup were often the most important in terms of content and number of readers.

Sometimes I would work on one article that needed a bunch of cleanup, and the backlog numbers didn't come down. Sometimes I tried to finish off the new articles needing quick fixes. This makes the numbers come down for a little while, but then you run out of quick fix articles. Sometimes I would just work on a quick fix for one little issue. Getting through the quick fix issues can bring the total number of issues down, but may not have much impact on the number of articles needing cleanup.

My takeaway is:

All forms of cleanup are needed
The cleanup backlog listings are a valuable tool
A single editor can definitely make a dent in the cleanup backlog, but you can't bring the numbers down very far without help from other editors.
Going slowly to develop a high quality article, and recruiting expertise among editors who can get the significant articles right, may be the most important thing we can do for our readers
Doing routine, mechanical fixes on the lesser read articles can help ensure that misinformation doesn't spread
Lots of people at editathons have told me they are really good at "clarification", but I have almost never seen an article needing "clarification" resolved, in this or any other WikiProject's cleanup queue!

In conclusion,

There is no magic plan or prioritization I can see that would work on the cleanup queue.
Whatever you enjoy doing to improve the encyclopedia, just keep doing it.

Sometimes at work, people have asked me, "Is Wikipedia really accurate?" So I ask them, "Well, what are you interested in? Let me show you." Then I show them how to find the cleanup queue for the Wikiproject they're interested in, and we take a look at the articles on the list. I point out that if they really want to ensure that everything is correct on Wikipedia, there's plenty to be done. So far, I have not recruited any new editors this way.

A special thank you to everyone working to develop high quality articles, that don't end up in the cleanup queue!

Oliveleaf4 (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks @Oliveleaf4. I wonder whether the articles listed in the “cleanup” link from this project page could have default sort according to the priority of this project? Chidgk1 (talk) 12:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chidgk1, you could ask for another column to be added for sorting by priority, but I would want to keep the ability to re-sort each section by column. Re-sorting a section by different criteria can be quite helpful for picking out a task you can tackle in the time available.
The project priority sort would be more important for the big topical WikiProjects with lots of editors, that can clear more than 50 articles a week.
Some articles in our queue which are tagged for multiple WikiProjects may be getting finished off according to the priorities of editors working on cleanup for other WikiProjects.
It's quite interesting to see how many WikiProjects there are now which focus on a specific aspect of cleanup, generally prioritized by date. The thing for us is that we will only see results from the cleanup-focused WikiProjects once in a while, since we make up such a small subset of the encyclopedia. The scale of our project is such that a single editor may actually be able to keep up with one or more sections of our queue.
Oliveleaf4 (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have asked at User talk:Bamyers99/Archive 19#Could the whole cleanup list for a project be sorted by importance? Chidgk1 (talk) 12:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have a question: how do I create an article within the scope of the project? Learning With Ameer (talk) 11:23, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The template is {{WikiProject Climate Change}}. It goes at the top of the talk page. If there are multiple project banners you can put that template (the whole thing, including the braces) inside {{WikiProject Banner Shell}}.
Right now there isn't any content in your article Draft:Climate Change History for anybody to know what you plan for this article. You might check related articles:
-- M.boli (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pinging @Learning With Ameer to make sure they see the comment, Sadads (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article on carbon sink overlaps too much with carbon sequestration[edit]

I plan to make some improvements to carbon sink. My initial reaction from looking at the article is that it contains a lot of content that should really be at carbon sequestration (and a short summary or excerpt to point across would suffice). With this post here I just want to test the waters in case someone has already thought about this in the past, and wants to propose an improved structure for the carbon sink article. My inclination would be to cut it down a lot, condense it and make it into a high level overview article. EMsmile (talk) 13:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Stratification (water)#Requested move 1 February 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:23, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update: we now have a new article on ocean stratification which was formerly part of stratification (water). Ocean stratification is one of the things that is being amplified by climate change, so quite important. EMsmile (talk) 08:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Wikipedia:CLIMATE" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:CLIMATE and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 3 § Wikipedia:CLIMATE until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. IntegerSequences (talk | contribs) 07:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiProject Petroleum[edit]

Hello, there is a proposal to form WikiProject Petroleum, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Petroleum. Jerium (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Africa Environment[edit]

Hello everyone,

First I would like to introduce you to a project which will run in March.

The m:Africa Knowledge Initiative (AKI) has tasked m:Wiki In Africa (WIA) and Wikimedia Community User Group Côte d’Ivoire (WMUG IC) with the challenge of driving content creation and contribution using the visibility offered through the African Union’s Wangari Maathai Day (3rd of March).

The main focus of the initiative is to encourage Wikimedia and other communities to contribute content related to Africa’s Climate to the Wikimedia projects in March 2023 and beyond!

The topics covered in this focus relate to the climates of Africa, and the impact of climate change and environmental issues or threats faced by countries and communities across Africa. Due to Africa’s historical landscape, for maximum impact the project will be bi-lingual : French and English. Content created should primarily be on Wikipedia, or Wikidata.

To do that, we are a small team organizing elements. For exemple, we were offered a fund to attribute micro-grants to individuals and groups in Africa to organize events. We also were asked to partner with organizations that have resources that might be helpful for the project. We are also collecting resources to serve editors. And finally, of course, we have to create plenty of red links :)))

One of the people willing to help is User:Cmwaura, already a member of this WikiProject, but I hope that more will be willing to join the effort this March.

Beside informing you, I have a few propositions where you could help if you are interested, and a question for you...

  1. First we launch yesterday the call for African individuals and community to propose local activities. Can you help us relay the call ?
  2. We also currently posting in various places. Telegram, Facebook, WikiProject pages, our websites... here is one such links recently posted : **
  1. Third, we will need jury members to evaluate the quality of the propositions submitted by the local organizers. A call will be published in the next couple of days. I will post the link later, but if you are interested, we are planning to support at least 11 propositions and the reviews need to be done before early March
  2. We need suggestions of resources. I am sure you already have some good ones. We are starting to collate our resources here : m:Africa Environment/Resources
  3. Last but least... we want to create some red lists. And of course to avoid reinventing the wheel. I am aware there are already some red links in your Africa task force. But maybe some would be interested to enrich them ?
  4. Additionally, we would like to put a special effort to create many articles to cover Climate of Country pages. At the moment, there are only 3 countries covered... we have started creating for such a table, but this table is hosted on meta, and the red links are ... green. Would this wikiproject will willing to host our red links pages ? If yes, we could transfer our current stuff. For example : m:Africa Environment/Lists/Climate of

Waiting eagerly for your feedback and thoughts. Anthere (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This comment is perhaps only relevent to South Africa. I like your decision to use Wikidata. If anyone is interested in improving the info on South African coal-fired power stations they can contact me as I have some Wikidata stuff for Turkish coal-fired power they might like to copy Chidgk1 (talk) 06:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Anthere and welcome to the WikiProject. In terms of redlink lists and articles to improve, I suggest topics around energy access by country. E.g. Clean cooking in country x, or Access to electricity in country x. The current decade is critical for making long-term decisions around what kind of infrastructure African countries will put in place to meet local needs for electricity and for modern fuels. Excellent sources on the nexus of energy access and climate include the International Energy Agency, World Bank, the WHO, and Our World in Data. The references on Sustainable energy and Energy poverty and cooking could be useful starting points for choosing sources. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Net Zero vs Carbon Neutrality[edit]

A key issue that we (the everyone) will face relates to a distinction between Net Zero and Carbon Neutrality - this is fundamental to tackle greenwashing. The ISO Net Zero Guidelines were recently published which gives loads of great source material and, because of how they are written (collectively through ISO), they are well suited to be used as a basis for an article. Could an admin or experienced user help me to execute the change needed to split the redirect and build the article? Many thanks, Dan Our2050World (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Our2050World, welcome to Wikipedia! You want to change the redirect from "Net Zero" so that it becomes a stand-alone article? Currently it redirects to carbon neutrality. It would be easy to do, you just need to use source editor on the existing Net zero page. But it would be best if you suggest this on the talk page of carbon neutrality first (ah, I see now that you already posted there; that's good). Perhaps you can build up the planned content for a new Net zero page in your sandbox before carrying out the split? I am not sure if a split is needed or if the redirect should perhaps simply be changed to point to a particular section within the carbon neutrality article? - Please also take a look at a new merger discussion for carbon credit and carbon offset here: . EMsmile (talk) 08:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello @Our2050World. When I talk about a missing articles on Wikipedia, that is the example I give! Carbon neutrality is usually applied to companies, products and individuals, and is usually a short-term goal. The global and national goals to decarbonise to net-zero are quite a different topic. I don't quite understand the greenwashing aspect it. Could you expand on that at talk:carbon neutrality?
You already have to ability to do this. When you WP:split an article, keep in mind that WP:copying within Wikipedia requires attribution. You could do it WP:boldly, but writing a new article is sometimes difficult to do for new editors, so I would continue to ask for a bit of help at talk:carbon neutrality. When using the ISO guidelines, keep in mind that these will be written for an expert audience, and that Wikipedia articles should be significantly easier. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reminder: climate denial review in different language Wikipedias[edit]

I'd like to bring back to your attention an important piece of work that was started by User:Femke a year ago, prompted by a BBC podcast about climate change denial content in different language Wikipedias. Here is the project description on Meta: Just putting it here in case some of our newer members hadn't seen it yet and have time to help with it. The earlier discussion, prompted by the BBC podcast is in the talk archive here. EMsmile (talk) 09:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was prompted to look this up today due to a related article that was posted on the Facebook Group Wikipedia Weekly. It's not about climate change but it takes a thorough look at another topic area where a few editors are pushing "wrong" content about the holocaust and the treatment of jews in Poland. The article describes in detail the failures of Wikipedias admin and arbitration process in detecting and sanctioning persistent behaviour that leads to misleading and wrong content. This is due to the fact that admins want to only focus on editor conduct not on content issues. It's a very interesting read: Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust. EMsmile (talk) 09:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: IPCC broke the links to draft reports[edit]

I'm not sure if they can be found elsewhere and we can do a WP:AWB run to fix all the links (webarchive likely), or that we just have to manually change thousands of links and find the new published page numbers.. I just updated Wikipedia:IPCC citation/AR6. So please, use the preformatted citations (/finish them), rather than copying citations between articles. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This happened when the IPCC Working Groups published the final versions of their contributions to the Sixth Assessment Report, replacing the provisional ones that have been up since August 2021 and February and April 2022. I've alerted them to the problem and asked if there's a way of correcting it or to let us know if other changes are happening. Jonathanlynn (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your opinions on fossil fuel phase-out?[edit]

It is correctly marked as top priority - your opinions at Talk:Fossil fuel phase-out#Do we need the hydro, solar, nuclear and biomass sections? would be welcome if you have time - and your edits too of course Chidgk1 (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bradextw is improving the readability of climate change articles[edit]

Hello @Bradextw - I just noticed. Thank you and if you ever run short of difficult to read articles just ask here and I am sure we will be quick to load you up with lots more work :-) Chidgk1 (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cool! Welcome aboard Brad! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do we really need a climate change sidebar?[edit]

I noticed that User:Arcahaeoindris created a new climate change sidebar and added it to the climate change mitigation article. I am just wondering what to make of it. Perhaps it's great or maybe it's superfluous. Presumably it is their intention to also add it to all the other climate change articles? I am not necessarily opposed to this but I do wonder if it's adding any value, given that we already have a navigation box at the bottom. Is the new sidebar meant to show the same articles as the navigation box? Or is it meant to be a truncated version? Does it work better on mobile devices than the nav box at the bottom of the article? Here is the talk page for the climate change sidebar: And here is the talk page for the climate change navigation box: EMsmile (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think readers are more likely to notice the sidebar. Dunno if an ipad counts as a mobile device but it looks good to me on the Safari browser on ipad Chidgk1 (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I totally appreciate the work that's gone into this template. I have always found our navigational templates on climate change and sustainable energy to cause more problems than they solve. This template says we have a "series on climate change" but we don't actually have a series - we have a variety of articles that talk about various aspects of the issue from various angles and with various levels of detail. Wikipedia is a reference work on climate change, not a course on climate change. Every CC navigational template I have seen, including this one, has the same problem of "How do you decide what to include and in what group and order?" and comes up with incongruous answers like putting "Deforestation" on par with "Greenhouse gas emissions" as this one does. So I would say thanks but no thanks to this template, unfortunately. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Clayoquot. I think our range of climate change articles (4000 articles currently tagged with the WikiProject Climate Change tag) is way too huge to fit neatly into a sidebar. See also WP:SIDEBAR which says the articles should be tightly related. We do have a renewable energy sidebar and a pollution sidebar. These are smaller topic areas where a sidebar can work. Maybe we could have a "climate change mitigation sidebar", would that make sense? Note we also don't have a "Medicine sidebar" as the topic area is way too broad but we do have a medicine nav box. EMsmile (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi User:Arcahaeoindris you have not responded to these concerns yet but instead have added the sidebar to quite a few articles by now. I plan to remove them for the reasons as described above. Note for others: there is also a "global warming sidebar" here which is under discussion for a merger: EMsmile (talk) 12:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @EMsmile:, thanks for the reminder! I responded on the template talk page but will repeat my view here: "I was intending for this to be a truncated navbox for only the core topics. Kind of like how there are dual navboxes and sidebars for a lot of major topics, e.g. Template:COVID-19 pandemic and Template:COVID-19 pandemic sidebar, Template:George W. Bush and Template:George W. Bush series, and even Template:Green politics which can be formatted as a sidebar or main navbox. Not sure answers for the other two questions but those were my thoughts".
On the above discussion, I still think the sidebar could be a useful and eye-catching way of linking together key articles. Climate change is a broad topic, but I don't see how this means it is too broad to have a sidebar. We also have sidebars for big topics like Template:Speculative fiction sidebar and Template:Alternative medicine sidebar. I would not expect all 4000 articles to be included in the sidebar or for it to be on all 4000 pages, but understand if a more closely knitted area like a climate change mitigation sidebar would be better. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Arcahaeoindris, thanks for these inputs. I think more targeted sidebars could indeed be more useful (for the same reason that we don't have a sidebar on medicine or on literature but on Template:Speculative fiction sidebar and Template:Alternative medicine sidebar). In our case here I could imagine that a sidebar just for mitigation articles could be useful. And maybe one on "Effects and impacts of climate change" (I am undecided about using effects or impacts here), and maybe one on "Society and climate change". And "Climate change by location". I guess it's saying: take some of the main headings of the existing CC sidebar and make them into more targeted sidebars. Perhaps this would work better. Could you try it out, starting with a climate change mitigation sidebar maybe? EMsmile (talk) 11:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As you like - I have started with one for Template:Climate change and society Arcahaeoindris (talk) 10:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I think this is better. But I would remove the image as it would be incredibly hard to find a suitable image or icon for this sidebar. Couldn't these sidebars just be without images to make it easier? (I do like that you chose a woman who is doing the lecturing but still it looks a bit top-down and simplistic...) EMsmile (talk) 10:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Made another one for Template:Climate change mitigation as well. Sure, can remove the image although think they do make them more eye-catching. If you can find a better one feel free to replace them. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Does it really need to be eye catching though? Why? Why do we need to draw additional attention to this sidebar? It's already quite prominent anyhow. I don't really want to use brain power to find suitable images for several sidebars that I didn't really think were needed in the first place.... Let's just make it easier for ourselves and agree on "no images for these sidebars"? These climate change articles already have enough images and graphs in them. (and a graph as the main image, like you have done for the climate change mitigation sidebar, is even less suitable, I think). EMsmile (talk) 12:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Climate apocalypse and climate endgame articles[edit]

These two articles exist in a weird shadow state where they are present on Wikipedia, yet remain outside of Template:Climate change, and I am not sure how many regular members of this project even know of their existence. Either way, I believe they are both fundamentally flawed as they stand.

Climate apocalypse appears to be primarily the work of @Bluerasberry, and it effectively amounts to a sensationalized version of Effects of climate change with a dash of climate crisis (an article explicitly about the terminology used to communicate effects of climate change, and which is actually pretty good, and is already on the template.) Worse, since the article obviously has to live up to its title and convince its readers of the apocalypse, it is inherently skewed by design, uncritically adopting what are often fringe narratives, and attempting to balance them with scientific consensus would most likely destroy the whole point of the article.

I'll just go over the article section by section, quickly.

  • First paragraph of the lead: "A climate apocalypse (also called a climate dystopia and a climate-induced collapse, among other names) generally denotes a predicted scenario involving the global collapse of human civilization and potential human extinction as either a direct or indirect result of anthropogenic climate change. Many academics and researchers posit that in actuality, unless a major course correction is imminently implemented, some or all of the Earth will be rendered uninhabitable as a result of extreme temperatures, severe weather events, an inability to grow crops, and an altered composition of the Earth's atmosphere." You can see already see that this section is very vague and full of weasel words. It technically has 4 references, but one is a YouTube video and the other three are basically the same, consisting of this paper and two news articles about it. Moreover, these sources are hardly even congruent with either each other or the text, since the video is about a 5 degree scenario, which is never even mentioned in the paper. In fact, the paper also makes no mention of any part of the Earth being rendered uninhabitable, and nor does it predict any "inability to grow crops". What's more, its "Ecological Overshoot: Population Size and Overconsumption" section ends with an acknowledgement that the authors do not actually expect the human population to decline due to climate change during this century. (Which is, of course, the mainstream scientific position, as represented by the IPCC reports, where the only reason why human population might be lower in 2100 than it is today is due to declining population-level fertility from widespread access to birth control.)
  • Second paragraph of the lead is blatant editorializing ("Many scientists have repeatedly warned about severe risks up to the level of what may described as "climate apocalypse") and the third and fourth could be easily merged into climate crisis and Climate change in popular culture.
  • Most of the "Apocalyptic impacts of climate change and ecological breakdown" is basically the same as Effects of climate change, only briefer, less up-to-date and more editorialized/sensationalized. (I.e. sea level rise section immediately switches from one prediction of 2100 sea level rise to ultimate sea level rise from very long term ice sheet melt with no mention of the timelines.) Some exceptions include "Atmosphere" section, which makes extremely strong claims on the basis of two references that are nearly 20 years old, and "Mass extinction", which contains no up-to-date predictions of extinction risk from climate change and is just blatantly wrong with its paleo analogies (as in, the claim that "95% of living species were wiped out" during the Permian–Triassic extinction event is immediately contradicted by that very article.)

Finally, most of the predictions at the end are presented largely uncritically in a manner uncharacteristic (and unbecoming) of a Wikipedia article. Examples:

  • The way "What if we stopped pretending?" is described suggests that the only criticism of that opinion piece was due to its tone, and leaves open the idea that it was controversial simply for speaking hard truths. It ignores that Franzen was also found to have explicitly gotten the science wrong multiple times by the climate fact-checker Climate Feedback.
  • "The 2050 scenario" is presented completely uncritically and is used as a reference multiple times throughout the text. There is no mention that it was never peer-reviewed, that it wasn't written by scientists, or that it was also found non-credible by Climate Feedback.
  • "Famous figures" has little internal logic to it. Its inclusion criteria are so loose that an equivalent list of figures with a positive attitude towards dealing with climate change could very easily be made, though it's unclear what it would prove.

In all, the article just doesn't seem to provide anything which the other articles do not already write about, and usually far better. I propose moving whatever can be salvaged from it into the other relevant articles and deleting it.

Finally, climate endgame is just devoted to a single "perspective" paper (i.e. a peer-reviewed opinion piece) which provides no new evidence and does not even actually predict anything. It simply proposes a range of new terminology, and as such it can be easily merged into climate crisis (which happens to be a relatively small article as well, for that matter.).

Looking forward to seeing others' opinions on this matter. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking briefly at the Apocalypse article (with a moderate ~150 views/day), I agree it has more than a whiff of sensationalism and could use some bold clean-up editing by anyone concerned. Especially since the Endgame article (~10 views/day) states "The concept had been previously named climate apocalypse", a fraction of the Endgame article could be incorporated into the Apocalypse article, and the Endgame article converted to a redirect. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for bringing this up, ITK. Just a procedural aspect: I suggest that you copy (or move) this detailed critique to the talk page of Climate apocalypse and then afterwards you put an alert on this talk page to alert members of this WikiProject to your work. I don't think that climate apocalypse was primarily the work of @Bluerasberry (I would have been surprised as they are a very experience Wikipedian). Another editor has contributed more content, so I am pinging them as well: User:Ebenwilliams. (There's a tool called "Who wrote that?" which I find very useful, see here: Apart from that I agree with you (and RCraig09) that:

Next steps for climate apocalypse article[edit]

I'm late to this, just want to say that I completely agree; the Climate apocalypse article is filled with pseudoscience that is completely at odds with both mainstream expert opinion (including the IPCC) and other, more factual Wikipedia articles on the subject. I can't think of another instance of Wikipedia mischaracterizing a scientific consensus this badly. Will(B) 19:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for bringing this back up, Will-B. I hope someone can devote some time to this. User:InformationToKnowledge how would you summarise the current status? I guess the discussion at the talk page of climate crisis came to a point where a merger of climate apocalypse and endgame into climate crisis was rejected. But that still leaves the to-do of merging the apocalypse and endgame articles together and culling out non-encyclopedic content? Anyone available to have a go at this? Merging and culling is fun - and easier than writing new content. :-) EMsmile (talk) 11:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I actually wrote a draft article at the time to demonstrate what I would replace that mess with. Unfortunately, no-one paid attention to it at the time (to be fair, I did drop it at the tail end of a somewhat charged merge discussion), and I didn't have the time recently to go further with it. It was done relatively quickly and I would certainly like to give it another couple of revisions before suggesting it's published. If anyone here would like to offer feedback on that draft, by all means, do so! InformationToKnowledge (talk) 15:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, I took another look at your Draft Climate change and civilizational collapse. It's a great piece of work and a pity that it hasn't received much attention yet; but I have to admit that personally I always find it rather confusing when people propose a new article and it's not clear to me which parts of the old article they have now merged/reused. I think we should first merge climate endgame into climate apocalypse, then remove any content that is rubbish/outdated/not encyclopedic. Then add any new content that you have developed and then lastly discuss if the article should get a name change.
I see that a lot of this climate change type content is already at societal collapse (which you linked to with an excerpt, which is good). But some of that content at societal collapse could at the end be moved to the revamped climate apocalypse article (which maybe be renamed to Climate change and civilizational collapse as per your suggestion; it could hence be seen as a sub-article to societal collapse.
So the first "easy" baby step would be to merge climate endgame into climate apocalypse (without thinking much about quality at this stage) - right? Anyone could do this? EMsmile (talk) 11:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] else commented, still. If we were to do things this way - does this topic alone (and the old, now-closed merge discussion about climate crisis, where many of the same points were brought up) count as a sufficient justification to go ahead with it right now, or should a separate merger proposal and vote take place first, still? InformationToKnowledge (talk) 09:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've just added the new merger tags to both pages and removed it from climate crisis. I feel that consensus has been reached by now and you're free to go ahead with merging climate endgame into climate apocalypse.EMsmile (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I waited for nearly a week in case there were still any objections, but there apparently weren't, and so it's done.
What should be the next step? Would it be to publish the draft as an article and start a merge discussion? Starting a discussion to rename the apocalypse article and then changing it in line with my draft? Or something else entirely? InformationToKnowledge (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi InformationToKnowledge. I just repaired attribution to a CC-BY source. Before you bring this into mainspace, can you see if there are more instances of unattributed copying?
I think publishing and starting a merge discussion could work. Assuming you've not copied from the old articles, that may give us the cleanest attribution history? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for doing the merger, InformationToKnowledge. I am wondering if further discussions on this should now be moved to the talk page of climate apocalypse rather. Also I am wondering if it's perhaps easier that you move the relevant content from your draft to the climate apocalypse bit by bit, with explanations in the edit summaries - rather than publishing your draft and then merging (which seems to me like a roundabout way). Also start the discussion about renaming the article there on the talk page, I would say. EMsmile (talk) 10:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Food and Agricultural Climate Actions - Requested information by users.[edit]

Hi all, Sorry for the late start on this - I came down with COVID. I mentioned below that we at Climate Steps were collaborating on two items with the WPCC - 1) pooling our key secondary, tertiary climate references with you all and creating a resource page here in PCC, plus editing some pages; and 2) conducting research on IMPACTFUL climate actions that individual people can take. Will put in the links to the proposals here shortly, but I have to run and man a tool library in one sec. OK, back now: Rapid Grant - focused on references, and WikiCred grant on food and ag.

But, I wanted to share with you the results of two surveys we conducted (as our first steps on this project) on what information people are seeking in terms of food/ag-related climate actions. There are no doubt more, and there are no doubt solutions that we know of that we want to add. But sourced from over 140 comments/questions plus 1000 reviews, this is a starting place to what information people want to know.

Please take a look, and feel free to comment. One of our folks is going to search WP for what is well-covered, and potential holes - you know the scene better than we do, so suggestions welcome. The next step will be then to prioritize this list for what to research this spring, and we'd appreciate your ideas very much. Perhaps even we can have a webinar to discuss. @clayquot @EMsmile @tajanabaleta.

I'd also like to introduce Mark Stewart (@Loupgrru) who will be doing a lot of the nitty gritty work on references, but also is our community expert, and Shoshana Risman, who is not yet on board, but coming. We also have two volunteers from Africa, Frake Lewis and Alhassan Sesay, who are coming on board to help with African-specific climate actions. ``Thank you! AnnetteCSteps (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @AnnetteCSteps. The link to the google docs documents doesn't seem to work.
It's cool to see a reader survey! This is something we don't often have a chance to see. Writing about individual action on climate change isn't always the easiest topic, as there are widely varying opinions on this, and it's not always easy to see which ones are the most mainstream. Having a pool of resources would be great, as these articles have often overused news articles rather than peer-reviewed secondary sourcing. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay. I just replaced the link and made sure the permissions were open. Hope it works now! Glad you are interested. It is interesting and sometimes surprising stuff. As Shoshana says, some of the questions may not have info sources, but they are still interesting climate questions. AnnetteCSteps (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A couple of semi-random thoughts: 1) We could really use an article on Greenhouse gas emissions from food. Our World in Data is an excellent source to start from.[2][3] 2) I'll bet Wikipedia's articles related to gardening could use some TLC, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not the worst idea, but wouldn't that proposed article overlap quite a lot with Environmental impacts of animal agriculture in practice? I suppose that fertilizer-derived emissions might end up as the main point of difference between the two in practice, and I'm not sure how that would look. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We also have greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, which would overlap more strongly. Not a perfect overlap, but given the rapid-changing food system, it may be too much too maintain both. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Frake Lewis and Alhassan Sesay and anyone else interested in agriculture. I am hoping to work on getting Agriculture in Turkey up to good standard soon. So if either of you are planning to edit any “Agriculture in country X” articles please contact me as I will be interested to exchange ideas as my knowledge of agriculture is pretty small Chidgk1 (talk) 12:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Low-carbon diet could do with some tender loving care Chidgk1 (talk) 12:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great idea! That's the article that would actually be best suited to cover the topic of greenhouse gas emissions from food. Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture overlaps to some degree but does not include food transport, food processing and storage, or emissions from the decomposition of food waste. Also some agriculture produces biofuels, cotton, etc. rather than food. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:44, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey all. We'd definitely love to help set some priorities on this research, especially for our gang, because we can't do everything listed so far. But first, I just want to ask a question here about the term Greenhouse Gas Emissions. I am finding in my own line of work that far more "regular" people/climate activists use the term 'carbon emissions' than GHG emissions, even though not all GHGs are carbon-related (nitrous oxide). Kindof like "carbon sequestration." I am sure we need the most defined terminology, and a search for carbon emissions in WP automatically brings up GHG emissions article. But we may want to add the tag 'carbon emissions' to the pages GHG emissions from agriculture, low-carbon diet, etc., as these do not appear in a search.
I think also that a "low-carbon diet" topic is too narrow for food-related carbon emissions - as it also doesn't cover food storage issues (feezing) or food waste for the general public. I think diet is a subset of the food topic in general. Being new to Wikipedia, can there be a "Food and Climate" page? I know page maintenance is an issues, as @Femke said above. I think, however, it might be a good entrance to multiple sub and related pages. AnnetteCSteps (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, there is also Sustainable Food System, which overlaps, of course. AnnetteCSteps (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Annette. If you want to a particular search term to lead to a particular article, you can do so by creating a wp:redirect for that search term. With respect to prioritization, there is a Wiki Edu training module with some useful principles. For more specific feedback, Alex Stinson at the WMF might be able to help?
I was just thinking that one angle that might be of interest to your group would be to improve articles on the development of eating habits in children. Our Infant feeding article, for instance, needs some TLC. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks @Clayoquot. A redirect would work, and I need to visit that training module.
In terms of children's eating habitats, I think that will have to come later, and not during this pilot project. But it is an interesting thing at least to link up to climate action and food. But right now, actions have to focus on adults because we have less than 10 years to fix the worst of climate emissions to prevent a disastrous temperature threshold. That rules out focusing on children - there are so many great adult actions to tackle!
Coming soon - a suggested list of priority topics to work on, that we'd love to discuss with you all. More in a new topic. AnnetteCSteps (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most assessments as 'Stub' articles are wildly out[edit]

I noticed that a very large number of articles assessed as 'Stubs' in this project's Quality Assessment table do not deserve their low grading (c.500 in total). By losing the genuine stubs amongst better length articles, we lose the opportunity to direct editors towards improving those smaller articles most in need of attention. I will try and work through some when I have time (High and Medium importance stubs have now been re-assessed).

I wanted to raise this as an issue because I was about to suggested to a group of university students that they could use the assessment table to easily find those pages most in need of improvement and expansion. Sadly, it seems that won't be possible until all the ratings are re-assessed by this project, and quality assessments applied to 'all' projects, not just this one. You may find WP:RATER a very useful tool for this task. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah thanks did not know there was a tool. Am having trouble installing it - asked for a button - User talk:Evad37/rater.js#Any chance of an install button? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I ignored the warning message on install and it seems to work. But I am a bit confused. Firstly I tried a few and it still rated them as stub - perhaps I did not try enough but what makes you think a lot of them are not in fact stubs? Secondly why is “stub” marked for each project - that would imply that an article could be a stub for one project but not another? Thirdly thanks for fixing the high and medium importance articles - why is it worth the effort checking the low importance articles? Chidgk1 (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chidgk1 All very good questions! In my view, many of the 'stub' articles I looked at did actually contain sufficient information that they merited at least 'Start' class. They mostly contains more than just a couple of sentences and a few citations - easily enough to give some context and understanding, yet clearly not enough to be anything near a perfect encylopaedic article.
Let me pick on 'Stub' article Arnt Eliassen totally at random, I feel this deserves better than a stub rating. If it were a stub, it would be regarded under WP:ASSESS as Provid[ing] very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition. Readers probably see insufficiently developed features of the topic and may not see how the features of the topic are significant. In fact, there is an informative lead section, a cited section about his career, some personal information in another section and seven references. I would place that at 'Start' level, explained at WP:ASSESS as Provid[ing] some meaningful content, but most readers will need more. I come away knowing a little about this person and some sources I could follow up on. It was not encyclopaedic, but was a good starting point. Hence: Start grade in my view
Of course, assessment is very subjective. I recently worked through a couple of thousand articles at WP:ALPS and feel these all merited stub assessment as all were short and far from giving anything like a clear or full picture of the topic.
You asked why is stub marked for each individual project. Another qood question, and 99.999% of the time I would expect the quality assessment to be identical for every WikiProject. Rater lets you change this with one click in the top right dropdown box. However, there could be very rare occasions, say, on a technical topic, where one Project might feel that it didn't quite meet its own quality standards of referencing or detail, whereas for other WikiProjects it might be perfectly acceptable. I would never expect to see the lower assessment grades being applied differently across different projects (up to and usually including C grade), but I might not worry if one gave an article a B grading, whilst another gave it a C or an A.
And another excellent question is "why bother assessing all those pesky low-importance stubs?". Well, firstly, what is not important to one person or to one WikiProject can be of great interest to another. It might be of low importance here, but high importance in another field! Consider the Grosses Fiescherhorn - a not very well-known 4000m high glaciated mountain in Switzerland. It's graded of low importance both to WikiProject Switzerland and to the worldwide project, WikiProject Mountains, but not to WP:ALPS where, because it has a more local focus, it is regarded as 'high' importance as one of the 'collectable' summits over 4000metres high in the mountains of the European Alps.
The second reason for bothering is that, by correctly assessing all articles, new editors looking for articles to improve can come and find the poorer 'stubby'; ones and work to improve them. If they can't find them amongst the better quality articles that are still marked down as stub, we are less likely to attract someone's attention to it. Two days ago I drove 200 miles to help out at a UK university training event where Journalism students were being taught about using Wikipedia, and set a task to work on creating a new article each in the Climate Change area. A few days beforehand, I suggested to their tutor that she set the an alternative optional task of improving 'stub' articles and bringing one up to either Start or C-standard. easier than creating a new article from scratch. But, having arrived and looked at this Projects Assessment Table, and finding it so out-of-date- I had to tell her to forget that idea because the table simply couldn't be trusted to present all related articles in a reasonable way. You can't expect someone to work on improving a Stub article to Start or C-grade when it's actually already there, or close to it. So, it was a lost opportunity.
Although many other WikiProjects are relatively inactive (and WP:ALPS is a qood example of that, I firmly believe that all Assessment Tables are one of the best ways to direct new editors to find articles to improve in areas that interest them. If they're no good to start with, then we'll lose that opportunity.
I do hope this make sense and addresses your questions. And I hope this rather long reply might spur you and others here to revisit and systematically work through the entire Assessment Table in due course. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting. I agree it would be worth improving that table. A while ago I worked on the top and high importance labels in that table, see here. But in general, we need more people to work on these climate change topics so if you get journalism students interested in that, that's great! - And I don't understand what the Rater Tool could do for me? I usually just change the ratings or importance labels manually on an article's talk page? EMsmile (talk) 12:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EMsmile I went through the mid importance stubs and mostly accepted the RATER recommendations when it suggested ‘start’. So if you and others are happy with those changes I could ask whether similar rater checks and changes to all our low importance articles could be done in some kind of automated single run Chidgk1 (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that if I was rating Arnt Eliassen manually it would be ‘start class’ but when I run rater it says ‘stub’ - maybe you could check to see whether rater also says ‘stub’ for you or whether there is some kind of fault in my install or I am running it wrong Chidgk1 (talk) 13:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah now I have RTFM I see I misunderstood - it displays a rating bottom left of ‘start’ and then I have to reset the climate change project drop down if I accept that. The manual says that could be 'wildly inaccurate' but I will try a few and if it gets them right I will ask if a bulk run is possible. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I totally agree that it would be great if journalism students could improve stub class articles and much better than them trying to create new articles. And I am glad you are helping the uni. But we already have 24 high and mid importance stubs and hundreds of start class articles for students to improve, and I would rather spend time classifying the importance and quality of our “unknown” articles than checking the rating of low importance articles. If those articles which are not very important to us are important to other projects it is up to them to rerate them. Alternatively if the rater tool proves reliable we could ask whether it could be automated to run against all our low importance articles in bulk Chidgk1 (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal to merge carbon credit and carbon offset[edit]

Please participate in the discussion here on whether carbon offset and carbon credit should be merged into one article and if yes, what the title of the combined article should be: The merger was proposed by User:Dtetta. EMsmile (talk) 08:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I’ve nearly finished an outline for a combined article tentatively title “Carbon Offsets and credits” (still need to flesh out the “Recent Trends” section). It’s located at: User:Dtetta/Carbon offsets and credits. I think this effort shows the tightly intertwined nature of these two concepts, and why it would make sense to have a combined article.
Regarding the proposed title, there are several examples of other WP articles covering closely related concepts that use “and” in the title, such as: Provinces and territories of Canada, 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami, and List of United States counties and county equivalents. There may be another way of describing this combination of terms, I just have not been able to think of a better one.
Within the outline, notes in italics indicate what portions of the existing two articles I have included at various point. Where a reference is described using citation numbers, it is referring to citations from the current articles that I would propose to keep in this article.
I would appreciate thoughts on the following:
  • After looking at this outline do you think it make sense to have a combined article?
  • If not, how would common areas such as “Background and General Features”, “Project types”, “Ensuring quality and identifying value”, and “Effectiveness and limitations” be captured in each of the articles? IMO even the “Programs and markets” section is difficult to separate cleanly. As I was going through the outline, I looked for areas where there seem to be clear distinctions between credits and offsets. The clearest would be in the compliance programs. But offsets are even intertwined within those programs.
  • Are there concepts in the existing articles that you don’t see represented here, but think should be?
Thanks:) Dtetta (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If anyone does want to comment, please post comments here on the Carbon offset talk page. Dtetta (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would be great to get another couple of people who could offer their take on this - anyone have time and brainpower to spare? The current status of the proposal is to merge carbon credit into carbon offset. I'll add the merger tags to the two articles accordingly now. EMsmile (talk) 10:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The merge seems like a good idea, and the reasoning makes sense. Although, the list of bullet points is certainly a little hard to parse, as you would have to keep flitting between the proposal and the existing articles?
It also doesn't help that in my view, many of the sections in either article could do with more extensive referencing and general condensation. Yet, that is certainly best done once the merge takes place, so I would support it. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 09:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Citation needed for certain sentences within a paragraph?[edit]

I have a style guide question, perhaps others can help me understand this better: It's about adding more refs within one paragraph or not. I find it problematic when a long-ish paragraph has only a citation at the end of the paragraph as it may not always be clear if all the sentences are related to that same source. In particular when the sentences are not linked with each other with words such as "however", "in addition to", "similarly". (I see at WP:CITEFOOT: it is usually sufficient to add the citation to the end of the clause, sentence, or paragraph, so long as it's clear which source supports which part of the text.).

Here is my example from carbon accounting (in bold the two sentences that should have a ref in my opinion): The voluntary market is expected to grow tremendously over the next few decades. To date, the Scope 1-3 emissions of the 54 Global Fortune 500 companies that committed to net zero by 2050 or earlier is about 2.5 gigatons of CO2 equivalent.[1] By comparison, the volume of credits traded on the voluntary carbon market was about 300 megatons as of 2021.[2] Global demand for carbon credits could increase up to 15 times by 2030 and 100 times by 2050.[3] Carbon removal projects such as forestry and carbon capture and storage are expected to have a larger share of this market in the future, compared to renewable energy projects.

In my opinion, the first and the last sentence in that paragraph would benefit from a citation as it's not clear (to me) which of the three citations exactly would substantiate these two statements. Also in my opinion, I'd rather add a ref once too many then once too rarely.

Advantages of adding refs also within a paragraph include:

  • It doesn't leave the reader guessing which ref supports which statement.
  • If the paragraph gets split up by some future edits then the sentence doesn't end up without a ref. This is particularly important if the sentences within a paragraph are not linked with clear linkage terms, and thus future editors might decide to add a paragraph break or to move a statement from A to B.

The only disadvantage of too many refs is that it makes is slightly harder to read maybe. For comparison: the main climate change article has a ref for almost every sentence and certainly doesn't just have one ref at the end of a paragraph.

I guess the key guide here is: so long as it's clear which source supports which part of the text. - for the example from the carbon accounting article I don't think it's clear. EMsmile (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ Kizzier, K.; Hanafi, A.; Ogata, C.; Kellyand, A.; Carnahan, K.; Mertens, K (2021). Trends in the Voluntary Carbon Markets: Where We Are and What's Next (PDF). Environmental Defense Fund and ENGIE Impact. p. 3.
  2. ^ Belletti, Elena; Schelble, Rachel (2022-02-08). "Voluntary carbon markets: here to stay?". Wood Mackenzie. Retrieved 2023-01-12.
  3. ^ "Carbon credits: Scaling voluntary markets". McKinsey. January 29, 2021. Retrieved 2023-01-05.

EMsmile (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stratospheric aerosol pages[edit]

To add to the ongoing subject of page merges. Right now, we have at least four pages (stratospheric sulfur aerosols, stratospheric aerosol injection, solar geoengineering and global dimming) which are all relatively small (2-3k words each), have substantial overlap with each other and in at least some cases, are far from being up-to-date or particularly well-referenced. Their traffic appears rather uneven, as well.

I think it would benefit our coverage of these subjects if there was at least one merge. Either stratospheric aerosol injection or global dimming could be made into a subsection of stratospheric sulfur aerosols - perhaps, both of them can. Solar geoengineering is meant to be a more broad page which is also intended to cover non-aerosol proposals like marine cloud brightening (and probably other proposals like the recent space dust pipe dreams) so I think merging it/into it is inadvisable. That is, unless we decide to merge both stratospheric aerosol injection and marine cloud brightening (2k words, rather mediocre detail/referencing) and probably the stub-grade cirrus cloud thinning into solar geoengineering.

Thoughts? InformationToKnowledge (talk) 09:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While 2k/3k is not a reason to merge (those are decent-length articles for our typical readers, most read <500 words), the overlap and low-quality sourcing can be. I think the most logical is global dimming into SSA, but global dimming has much more views. If you believe it's easier to update and improve the articles together, rather than separate, that would be a good argument for a merge. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Having looked at it further, I now think that Stratospheric sulfur aerosols is possibly the worst one of those articles. The overlapping content on geoengineering is outdated, and it only describes its own subject in the most general terms, and with few references. To me, much of the article can be cut outright and the rest merged into Particulates - that article already has a very small section on sulfur and a larger one on black carbon, with "see also" linking to said article. After the merge, it would have a larger sulfur section with a "see also" to sulfur dioxide (another example of overlapping as well) which needs updating and might absorb some details from the SSA article as well.
The only issue is that the Particulates article is already 7.8k words long - this is because it goes into extensive detail about concentrations and health effects down the line. I find that many of those details would likely fit better in the air pollution article, which has more views than all of the other articles we discussed, combined. Yet, even though it appears to lack certain important information on the particulates page, it is already 8.4k words long, so it seems like some extensive condensation might have to be in order.
Global dimming would then stay as a separate article, especially as it's more of a subset of pollution/air pollution umbrella. It would require some extensive updates, however.
Lastly, I found that while solar geoengineering is essentially a sub-page of climate engineering, it is three times larger? This is probably not ideal? I would say that a merge of SG into CE may not be very difficult, as many sections (i.e. history and public perception) are already shared and can be combined with little modification. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 06:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I find the article title Particulates rather unfortunate as there are also particulates in water, like in wastewater. It would be much better if the title hinted at the atmospheric part, like atmospheric particulate matter.
I would not be in favour of merging solar geoengineering into climate engineering. The term solar geoengineering is well defined, whereas climate engineering is not (and should really be on its way out). That's the reason why the climate engineering is short - on purpose. I actually culled it a lot myself and added the definition from IPCC to it. IPCC no longer uses the term climate engineering as it's too vague. It's essentially just solar geoengineering plus CDR: "Climate engineering (or geoengineering) has been used as an umbrella term for both CDR (carbon dioxide removal) and SRM (Solar radiation management or solar geoengineering), when applied at a planetary scale". EMsmile (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmmm, fair point on SG vs. CE articles. I still think that CE could probably be made to look better, but I'm not going to dive into it right now.
I have been preoccupied with updating global dimming this week, and I think it's finally in a good enough state. (So much of it used to rely on papers from 2001-2005 only.) The only part I didn't touch was its own badly outdated SG section, since that would end up being an excerpt anyway. Updating stratospheric aerosol injection would be next: it's actually stunning how much research on it there's been over the past few years, and how little anyone seems to know of it.
I would still want to merge Stratospheric sulfur aerosols with Particulates afterwards. However, it seems like a discussion (on its talk page or elsewhere) about renaming it to atmospheric particulate matter might have to be done first? InformationToKnowledge (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dimming article is in a pretty great state, finally, (mainly needs some more images/graphs, I guess) and I was able to update solar geoengineering quite a bit as well. (Though likely still not quite enough.)
I still intend to split the Stratospheric sulfur aerosols content between stratospheric aerosol injection and Particulates (and maybe sulfur dioxide,too?), but this would have to be done sometime later. In the meantime, I also discovered that there is even a Sulfate aerosol stub, which is even more pointless. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good article reassessment for Urban heat island[edit]

Urban heat island has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Synthesis report now out[edit] Chidgk1 (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

: The only report that seems to be available now (beyond the "press release") is the Summary for Policymakers, whose footer says "Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute". :-\ —RCraig09 (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update: The Summary for Policymakers] (36pp) and Longer Report now merely state "Subject to Copy Edit". "Full Volume" is "coming soon". —RCraig09 (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What climate photos do you need? (Climate Visuals)[edit]

Hi everyone, Climate Visuals is working to increase the photographs available to Wikimedia Commons in their library and is seeking insights from the Wikipedia community about the climate photos you need and would use.

(The Climate Visuals library is designed to increase the impact and engagement of climate change photography and information via their creative commons photo gallery and evidence base).

What are the specific climate-related topics that you need photos for? What articles or topic areas are you working on, or planning to work on, that could use more compelling photos?

Please do let me know below and I’ll pass the message on. Climate Visuals will use this info to collect and curate existing photos that would fill these gaps. Thanks! TatjanaBaleta (talk) 09:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Tatjana, this is super-exciting! Quick addendum before people poke around the existing Climate Visuals library: The search feature of the website is currently under-powered so it does not let you search for images with Commons-compatible licensing (CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, and CC-0/public domain). I've heard that Climate Visuals intends to improve the search feature to allow searching for images that Wikipedia can use. Tatjana, would you be able to let us know when the improvements have been made? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Iranian parliament ratifying the Paris Agreement? Seriously though this is excellent. Could you make an Enhanced geothermal system look good in a photo? No doubt I will ask for more later. Thank you very much Chidgk1 (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The licensing page states "The nature of the specific Creative Commons license will be displayed at individual image level on the Climate Visuals image library, but will most commonly be: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0" — which does not meet Wikimedia requirements. Separately, there is a "Creative Commons" area] that has an internal hierarchy path "Back to Themes > Groups for collections page > Agency collections > Creative Commons", but the individual pictures merely say "Creative Commons" without specifying a particular license. . . . More generally, I can see that some of these photos might be proper at certain places in an encyclopedia, but I think there are already plenty of "dramatic" or "decoration" photos here that are not particularly, well,... encyclopedic. I'd be more excited to see illustrative charts/graphs be explicitly licensed. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your comment @Chidgk1! Keep them coming.
Re: licensing @Clayoquot@RCraig09 I can check in with Climate Visuals (CV) about planned updates to the search feature. It's worth mentioning that they are also sorting through their existing database to upload compatibly licensed images to Commons (via the assistance of a Wikipedian).
The call above is about aquiring new images for their library (and for Commons). @RCraig09 if you can think of any images you'd like that would be more encylopedic, CV would love to hear about this. They want to source imagery that will work for Wikipedia.
Re: charts & graphs, I'm hoping to aquire some of these in the near future, but if there are any organisations or collections you're particularly interested in, please do let me know. Thanks! TatjanaBaleta (talk) 13:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TatjanaBaleta: A main provider of valuable charts is the IPCC (, but I think that other editor(s) are already pursuing a process to obtain permissions/licensing. I don't remember any more details. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pinging @EMsmile @Dtetta @Sadads in case you have any insights on useful photographs. TatjanaBaleta (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TatjanaBaleta, I'd love photos for the Carbon dioxide removal article that illustrate synergies and trade-offs of CDR methods. In particular, we need photos showing the downsides of afforestation. The photos in Afforestation make it look all nice. I'd like to illustrate the issues that AR6 describes as: "Afforestation or production of biomass crops for BECCS or biochar, when poorly implemented, can have adverse socio-economic and environmental impacts, including on biodiversity, food and water security, local livelihoods and on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, especially if implemented at large scales and where land tenure is insecure (high confidence)." Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FINAL CALL! Please let know about any climate change topics you'd like to get images for. Thanks for the responses so far! TatjanaClimate (talk) 11:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IPCC full report content vs the Summary for Policymakers[edit]

People might be interested in this thread: . It says the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) can have "wildly different language" than the full report, as the SPM is often massaged by non-scientists. The takeaway for us is that for important or controversial claims, it's best to use the full report or the Technical Summary as a source rather than the SPM. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A good read! I find the SPM are often too densily written to paraphrase easily anyway. But yeah, what they say is correct (scientists still have to sign off), but they can be biased in what they omit. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh yeah, densely written. Which brings to mind a Friday diversion our group might appreciate, in which ChatGPT is asked to summarize The Cat in the Hat, IPPC-style: . Enjoy! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editathon today! 29th March[edit]

Hi everyone! Open invite to anyone interested in joining the Edit for Climate Change Editathon happening today, 29th March, 15:30 - 17:30 (GMT+1).

Register here: TatjanaBaleta (talk) 08:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All the best with your event! Is there a page somewhere where we can see which articles have been worked on through your edit-a-thons and project in general so far? EMsmile (talk) 08:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @EMsmile, the campaign dashboard is up here. I'd like to collate a list of articles worked on under this project on the project page - perhaps check back in a week and I'll try get a list up before then? TatjanaBaleta (talk) 12:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Project-independent quality assessments[edit]

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good idea - personally I think we don’t need a project-level assessment Chidgk1 (talk) 07:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Housekeeping: WikiProject Climate Change task force pages[edit]

Hi everyone. I'm starting to look at ways to improve how we engage new editors at WikiProject Climate Change. We currently have four "task forces": Africa, Agriculture, Climate Justice, and Biodiversity. These pages have not been recently maintained and when people add their names to the Participants lists, I'm not sure if anything happens. I'm thinking of 1) marking them as historical, 2) removing the tabs from the main navigation bar, and 3) adding links to the historical task force pages to our task list page. At some point I'd also like to create a new user welcome message for the people who sign up to the Participants list at WikiProject Climate Change. Thoughts? Pinging @YaguraStation, Phoebe, and Sadads:. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. Task forces can always be revived if someone wants to lead something. Thanks everyone who has participated. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:24, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi. We're finally getting back into chatting here, after some research. But I would say that I found the former task force pages helpful, especially as they highlighted a lot of work on climate change science and impacts, and less on climate mitigation for the public (within the African task force page for example,) so I saw a need. But I understand the reason for archiving. I was hoping that the three African mitigation volunteers I brought on board would join in the African task force and start adding mitigation information - but it looks like we're going in another direction with them. We will have a page we'd like to add on African mitigation efforts beyond agriculture; some great examples and studies are coming.
But one Task Force page I was wondering about was a Climate Mitigation Task Force - beyond what is present on the Talk page for Climate mitigation, instead more cross-cutting across pages. For instance, there is also the Climate Movement page and the Individual Climate Action article - all are relate to climate mitigation, but also Climate Adaptation efforts can overlap. But we especially hope to really provide more information on individual and community-level climate mitigation that ties to many many other pages, whether thought related to climate or not. (table coming). I would like to have a Task force on this as a result. However, I can't guarantee that it'll be a permanent project. Is it okay to have temporary task forces?
Sorry for any typos - the "e" an "d" keys on my computer have shorted out. In the process of switching to another computer. Have to cut-an-paste instead. AnnetteCSteps (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, it's perfectly OK to have temporary task forces. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great! AnnetteCSteps (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Carbon offset#Requested move 5 April 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. MaterialWorks (contribs) 16:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sources that explain "enhancing carbon sinks"[edit]

One thing we've struggled to explain in plain language is the IPCC's glossary definition of climate change mitigation, "A human intervention to reduce emissions or enhance the sinks of greenhouse gases." Enhance the sinks of greenhouse gases is the hard part to explain. In the contexts that I've seen, the IPCC uses the term "enhance sinks" to mean any form of carbon dioxide removal (CDR). But I can't find any source that actually says "enhance the sinks of greenhouse gases" is a synonym for CDR, and I'm not sure if these terms are actually synonymous or slightly different.

Enhance sinks is a tough term for the general reader to understand. If it actually means CDR, it's a strange term as some CDR methods involve geologic storage of CO2, which is more about creating new sinks than enhancing existing ones. Can anyone point us to a good source that explains the relationships between "enhancing sinks" and CDR? Any ideas Our2050World and OxfordNetZero? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"increase the rate at which CO2 is taken out of the atmosphere by any process" would be my go-to explanation. I think the key to that sentence is knowing what is meant by a sink in the earth sciences. I see Wikipedia doesn't have an article about sinks in that context, but it's basically anything that takes the compound you're studying out of the atmosphere and into some form of longer-term storage. I'm not sure what a source would be needed for here. EDIT: nevermind, found such an article. Whatever source you need to rephrase the IPCC glossary definition can probably be found here. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting - I think what you're saying is that we can just write something like "Climate change mitigation is efforts to to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere" and cite that to the IPCC glossary, because it's a reasonable way to paraphrase what the glossary says. I like that idea. What do others think? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 14:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. "Climate change mitigation involves efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere" cited to the glossary would be correct.
However - it may be better not to add something like "and into some form of longer-term storage." IPPC use the old school definition of 'sink', where it means a removal process - but not a storage receptor.
Here's how IPPC defined the word back in 1992 "Sink" means any process, activity or mechanism which removes a greenhouse gas, an aerosol or a precursor of a greenhouse gas from the atmosphere The definition in the AR6 glossary is near identical. "Reservoir" is their seperate term for storage: "Reservoir" means a component or components of the climate system where a greenhouse gas or a precursor of a greenhouse gas is stored. Granted, with CO2 , the two terms can be seen as closely related even by the IPPC definitions - i.e. in some contexts, talk of 'Reservoirs' means "Trees", while 'Sink' can be seen as meaning the "growing of trees".
But the IPPC mitigation definition speaks of GHG, not just CO2. The removal process is different with the non CO2 GHGs - there tends to be zero storage involved. Rather, sinking involves the gasses being transformed into something with less radiative forcing effects. Nitrous oxide can be reduced to harmless N2 & O2, and methane oxidised to CO2. Admittedly, it's not totally clear cut. Methanotrophs can effectively store some of the methane they oxidise - they use some of the Carbon to build up their body mass, but that accounts for less than 1% of total Methane draw down.
Back in the 1980s & 90s when I was studying Chemistry, I recall everyone using the same definition of sink. I guess the alt definition to mean storage (which is now to be found in many academic & government sources, not just our articles.) arose due to semantic drift caused by the internet, but partly it was due to an interesting example of intentional language corruption by the Europeans. This occurred in the sink wars. I'll box some information on this as it wont be relevant to most of our articles, but it may be interesting to those who like to know the wider context. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting! "the sink wars" would make a fun article, I think --Licks-rocks (talk) 14:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! I think so too. Unfortuneatly, the POV expressed in the box isn't the prevailing mainstream view yet, though moving in that direction. And while I could source most of it, no WP:RS calls them the 'sink wars' yet. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the sink wars

The sink wars were a bitter 30 year struggle over the role of sinks in Kyoto & later UNFCCC additions. Initially, the EU wanted to totally exclude sinks, so that Kyoto would have been solely about GHG sources, i.e. just about emissions reductions, with no credit giving for actions that took GHG out of the atmosphere. Later, the dispute was about the degree to which sinks would be limited. They were at their most intense in the mid to late 1990s, consuming the energies of some of the worlds best delegates. Though they did have the pleasing side effect of helping to heal some of the animosities lingering from the then recent cold war, and to forge some useful friendships between US & Russian negotiators.

On one side you had 'Team USA' - the US, Japan, Canada, Australia & Russia. They are sometimes called the 'Umbrella Group' in the few sources that cover the sink wars. Team USA were outnumbered by opposing delegates at several points, and largely restricted themselves to honourable tactics. Fortunately, their sound analyses and persuasive abilities won out in the end.

On the other side stood 'Team EU', who for parts of the war had the support of most of the RoW delegates. Naturally, most of the EU players thought they were the good guys. They imagined that by excluding or limiting the role of sinks in UNFCCC agreements, they could force the world to focus on fossil fuel emissions reduction, and transition to some kind of renewable utopia. Only a tiny inner circle knew they were effectively in thrall to the fossil fuel lobby, who then as now were funding the renewables push as the best way of tackling what they see as the real threat to their interests, the nuclear sector. (As is now quite well known the private sector scientists working for fossil fuel companies were way head of their academic peers in some of their climate predictions. They knew that pushing for a renewable only utopia would always leave a large role for fossil fuel due to the intermittency effect, and help them against their real competitor, nuclear industry.) In despair at how they began to lose ground to Team USA's superior arguments, Team EU stooped to tactics like commissioning sources to use conflicting definitions of 'sinks' , to muddy the waters. It didn't work, but as result of the EU's tactics (& also unintentional semantic drift) we still have many sources using the sink = storage definition.

@Licks-rocks: and @FeydHuxtable: thanks for you help on this! Your observations helped us to get consensus on rewordings in Climate change mitigation and in Climate change. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Licks-rocks: and @FeydHuxtable:, I found this really interesting, thank you! In March, I tried to improve the article carbon sink and that issue of process versus storage, sink versus pool or reservoir really stumped me. No wonder! Could you please take a look at carbon sink and at my edits there and tell me if it's OK like this or could be improved more? Just briefly some thoughts that I pondered in March, together with User:Richarit:
I put this into Chat GPT to find out: "what's the difference between carbon pool and carbon sink?" Answer by ChatGPT:

Both carbon pools and carbon sinks are important concepts in understanding the carbon cycle, but they refer to slightly different things. A carbon pool refers to any natural or human-made reservoir or storage of carbon. For example, the atmosphere, oceans, soil, plants, and fossil fuels are all examples of carbon pools. A carbon pool can be thought of as a container that holds carbon. A carbon sink, on the other hand, is a specific type of carbon pool that absorbs more carbon than it releases, thereby removing carbon from the atmosphere. Carbon sinks can be natural or human-made and can include forests, oceans, and wetlands. Carbon sinks are important for mitigating climate change because they help to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. To summarize, a carbon pool is any reservoir or storage of carbon, while a carbon sink is a specific type of carbon pool that removes carbon from the atmosphere. 

So if Chat GPT is right then carbon pool is the overarching term, and carbon sink is a particular type of carbon pool.

User:Richarit also pondered this: "I don't know much about the topic, but it seems to me that pool and sink are different things (based on the comment of Epipelagic "It is not so much a movement between sinks - rather movements into a sink, which creates another reservoir" and if so it might be easier to have the explanation all together on carbon cycle page" EMsmile (talk) 07:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't put too much stock in ChatGPT as a rule, but in this case it is mostly correct. A carbon pool is all the places where carbon can be, while a carbon sink is a carbon pool that has the capability to take up more carbon from the atmosphere than it releases. --Licks-rocks (talk) 08:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I can't think of good source to integrate the ChatGPT distinction into main space, though I agree with Licks-rock it sounds mostly right. I'd say the good work you've already done on carbon sink is fine for now. Richarit's suggestion for explaining related terms at carbon cycle sounds good, but I don't see any reason why it would be a priority unless you happen to know good sources. Or if you wanted to be really comprehensive and inluce detailed discussion on the different meanings of sink with respect to CO2 & non CO2 GHG as discussed above, then a nice place for that might be to create Greenhouse gas balance, as per Article 4 of the Paris agreement. I might even eventually create that myself if no one else does, though would likely wait until anthropogenic non CO2 sinks become more of the thing. (They've been getting more attention these past few years, there's a view that returning CH4 concentrations to pre-industrial levels could reduce warming by 0.5C, but it remains mostly theory & talk right now. See here & here if you're interested in that sort of thing.) FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What's the biggest impact we can make?[edit]

I am looking at carbon neutrality and net zero articles and (for me) the first two-three sentences are likely to make the biggest impact on the most people. How can we very clearly have a similar sentence structure for these two articles, ensure that they can be seen side-by-side (rather than in the context of each other)?

Some ideas: edit the two articles together, have a page explaining common misunderstanding on climate terms, update greenwashing, use wikidictionary? Our2050World 🌏 (talk) 11:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a complicated and important set of questions. The way we usually try to figure out these things is to look at incoming links to the articles, sources, and search engine results. The idea is to try to figure out how terms are used in the real world and give the reader something helpful when they click on a link or type a term into a search bar. From that, we can design a suite of pages that might include redirects and disambiguation pages.
Today I got as far as looking at the incoming links to carbon neutrality and links to net zero. The top 10 results from each are below:

Links to carbon neutrality[edit]

1. Japan: In 2020 the government of Japan announced a target of carbon-neutrality by 2050. – actually the target is net zero
2. Brazil: target of reaching carbon neutrality by 2060 if the country gets 10 billion dollars per year
3. Hungary: Hungary passed a law binding itself to a target of net-zero emissions by 2050
4. European Union: targets of 55% GHG emissions reduction by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2050 = actually the target is net zero
5. Google: Since 2007, Google has aimed for carbon neutrality in regard to its operations. A source says its goal is net zero.
6. Albania: Albania is committed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 45% and achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 – actually the target is net zero
7. Iceland: goal is to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by the year 2030 and reach carbon neutrality by the year 2040. An official government source uses the terms "climate neutrality by 2040" and "net zero by 2040" interchangeably.
8. Antarctica: The Belgian Princess Elisabeth station is one of the most modern stations and the first to be carbon-neutral.
9. Microsoft: In January 2021, the company announced on Twitter to join the Climate Neutral Data Centre Pact, which engages the cloud infrastructure and data centers industries to reach carbon neutrality in Europe by 2030.
10. Apple, Inc:Apple announced its plan to become carbon neutral across its entire business, manufacturing supply chain, and product life cycle by 2030. Source is a press release that uses the terms “net zero” and “carbon neutral” interchangably.

Links to net zero[edit]

1. United Kingdom: A law has been passed that UK greenhouse gas emissions will be net zero by 2050.
2. England: A law has been passed that UK greenhouse gas emissions will be net zero by 2050
3. Netflix: Netflix announced that it would work to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by the end of 2022. A Netflix sourcesays, "And as of 2022, we annually bring our remaining net carbon footprint to zero by investing in the power of nature to capture carbon."
4. University College London: achieving net zero carbon emissions for UCL by 2030
5. Fossil fuel: Guterres also said there is still cause for hope, anticipating Joe Biden's plan for the US to join other large emitters like China and the EU in adopting targets to reach net zero emissions by 2050.
6. Sea level rise: while the early net zero and slowly falling temperatures could limit it to 70–120 cm
7. Climate change mitigation: Many countries are aiming for net zero emissions,
8. University of Sussex: an effort to reach net zero by 2035
9. Rishi Sunak: keeping the legal commitment of reaching net zero by 2050
10. Carbon neutrality: Carbon neutrality is a state of net zero carbon dioxide emissions.

More analysis to come... Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


My takeaway from seeing what links to these terms, and from looking at some of the sources that expand on what is meant is:

  • The terms "carbon neutrality", "climate neutrality", and "net zero" are often used interchangeably.
  • Companies that say they are aiming for net zero are not necessarily setting a more stringent target for themselves than those that say they are aiming for carbon neutrality.
  • When actors commit to net zero or carbon neutrality by a certain date, I'm not sure if this means they have a plan to get there that is detailed enough to distinguish between carbon neutrality and net zero.

If we have separate articles for Net zero and Carbon neutrality, I think both should start by describing what these concepts have in common. And then talk about what the differences might be.

My gut tells me that there should be one article, Carbon neutrality, for the concept of actors bringing their emissions down and Net zero should continue to redirect there. If specific actors are mentioned in that article, we might be able to say what kind of quality standard they are aiming for, but sometimes we won't know. We should probably also have an article called Global net zero that delves into the climatology of net zero anthropogenic emissions everywhere. Articles such as Sea level rise should link to that.

This topic area is challenging to organize. I'm wondering if any experienced climate editors are willing to work on the nitty-gritty of this stuff alongside our new experts in the topic area to improve the Carbon neutrality article and either make Draft:Net zero ready to go live, or merge the draft contents into Carbon neutrality. User:Dtetta has done excellent work on carbon accounting - Dave, do you think this is something you can help with? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clayoquot - Looks like there’s a lot of good analysis here, as well as good work in developing these articles. Happy to assist in whatever way I can. I would also lean toward having one combined article called carbon neutrality, but I can see some value in a shorter article focused on NetZero as a more recent phenomenon.
Seems like it would be helpful to get a common understanding/consensus of the differences that actually exist between these two concepts. Having briefly looked through the two articles, I am not sure I fully understand exactly where those differences lie. But there’s a number of citations in these articles, as well as other internet references, that seem to address the various aspects of this. So that should help:) Dtetta (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lovely, thanks for offering to help! @Our2050World: is this what you need to move forward, or are you feeling stuck? It's a really tough and important topic area so feel free to ask for lots of help. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The images used for sub-pages[edit]

I don't really "get" the images that are currently being used for the sub-pages (copied below). They were added by Femke in this edit with this edit summary: "Adjust design; mostly stolen from pl:Edytujesz Wikipedia:Wikipedia dla klimatu/nawigacja" Maybe it's just me but I spend a few seconds each time trying to figure out the meaning/relevance of those images. Previously, we had just words, no images (see here). I think other Wikiprojects have better images for their sub-pages, see e.g. WP:MED. My suggestion is to either use no images or ones that are clearer like those used at WikiProject Medicine. I am talking about these images:

Stringy plant.svg
Small evergreen.svg
Ornamental tree.svg
Large evergreen.svg
Multystem tree.svg
General Tree.svg
Groundcover pattern.svg
Main Participants Popular
Style guide Get started
with easy edits

EMsmile (talk) 07:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also don't get them. My preference would be to use text-only tabs with no images. The current black-and-white design is an improvement over the old orange tabs IMHO, but the nicest-looking tabs use subtle shading. I like the tabs in Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history the most of any I've seen. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It thought it looked friendly and cute, no further meaning. Feel free to change it to something like the milhistory one if it's confusing. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I personally quite like these images, they do give the page a very unique, recognisable character. --Licks-rocks (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The images remind me of filaments, nerve cells or biology kind of stuff... I also think (like Clayoquot) that text-only would be the easiest and that the current version is better than the old orange tabs. I won't jump into changing them yet, awaiting further reactions and inputs from members. EMsmile (talk) 13:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A rather creative addition (being a biologist myself). These graphics might help to convene. As Marshall McLuhan said: "the medium is the message". Communicative graphics could liven things up on these pages. The "easy edits" graphic may need some simplification, mind you. Cheers ASRASR (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've switched the resources and easy edits, so that the easy edits has the simplest picture. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also was taken aback at first by the images, but I do agree that it livens the page up some. I'v gotten use to them, but do they intimidate newcomers? AnnetteCSteps (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've tried really hard to get used to the images but I can't, even after several weeks. I agree with AnnetteCSteps concerns that they could put off newcomers as they make it look overly complicated/weird/unusual. As Femke has indicated above that she wouldn't be offended if we changed it my suggestion now is to make it similar looking as those as WikiProject Military History, as per her suggestion (so just text, no images). They look like this (we would keep our own tab titles of course, just copy their formatting and font):
Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasks
However, I am a bit scared to make this IT change myself, looks complicated to do. Can someone help? If not I can give it a go but no guarantee that I won't mess it up. ;-) EMsmile (talk) 09:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would be sad to see images go entirely, I'm not a coder but maybe we could add some more climate-related images below each tab, similar to how WP:MED does it? --Licks-rocks (talk) 09:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Link to WikiProject Medicine: (I like their tab icons better than ours but somehow they also feel old-fashioned). EMsmile (talk) 09:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd like to add a new tab for events but I can't because I can't find an icon for it. Can we give the pages liveliness and friendliness in another way? How about if we remove the icons, and add some photos from our articles that illustrate the incredible breadth of this project, e.g. pictures on climate science, solutions, governance, biographies, countries, etc.? I'm pretty sure we can find a solution that's win-win, meeting both our aesthetic goals and our usability goals. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a great idea, I would support that. Perhaps some photos from Wikimania events with actual people (editors) could be good, e.g. was there any photos taken at the launch event of WikiProject Climate Change in Stockholm in 2019 (I am not sure if it was the official "launch event" but I was there (my only ever Wikimania) and User:Phoebe was chairing it). Showing some of the people behind this WikiProject might make the page feel more lively and "real"? - If not, we could also (or in addition) use some photos from the image collages that we have set up for the leads of sustainable energy, climate change mitigation or climate change adaptation. EMsmile (talk) 09:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes photos from those collages would be great, and we should also include a picture from one of our climate biographies (e.g. Greta) as biographies are a part of the project too. I am a huge admirer of Phoebe, but I would prefer to have the main impression of the project be about the content. If there's a visual statement to be made about people, it should be that this is a collaborative community with diverse ways of thinking. Pictures of individuals don't convey that "community" message, although I wouldn't object to having them in some sort of project history section. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:09, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BTW for historical interest, the person who probably did the most to get the project off the ground on-wiki was user:Cadar,[4] whom unfortunately we haven't seen in a while. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the info about User:Cadar, I wasn't aware of their contributions so far. - I've tried to remove the images from the tab header template but failed with my IT skills. Just for argument's sake I have now replaced the images with photos from our mitigation and adaptation articles. But again, these photos would now distract from the tab titles, wouldn't they? So I think it would be better to have no photos with the tab titles but perhaps to scatter the photos around as thumb size photos on the right? - In that case, could someone remove the images from the tab template (I couldn't work out how to do that).

Westmill Solar 2.jpg
Tramway de Dijon DSC 0244.JPG
Haiti reforestation nursery.jpg
Plant-Based Dishes, Raw Food (29103285347).jpg
FrontLines-EGAT 2011 Environment Photo Contest Top Entry (5842818280).jpg
20080708 Chicago City Hall Green Roof Edit1.jpg
Main Participants Popular
Style guide Get started
with easy edits

EMsmile (talk) 06:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it would help to put the images below the tab titles, which would help draw your eyes to them a little better. Putting them below makes them an image description, in terms of visual language. --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know how to do that... But also, each image would have to then somehow sensibly connect with the text, e.g. an image that somehow visualises "participants" would have to be under the "participants" tab, right? I think it's just easier to have no images with the tabs at all. EMsmile (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for making a mockup. I don't think images should be placed on tabs at all. People expect images on tabs to represent what the tab is about, and are confused if a tab's image and a tab's text say different things. I hope to have time in the next week to illustrate an alternative use of images that I have in mind. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. Let's take out the images from these tabs. But I don't know how to. When I tried in my sandbox, it messed up the formatting... EMsmile (talk) 08:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tab structure issues[edit]

Aside from the question of whether to use images, I'm going to make some adjustments to the tab structure:

  • Currently two tabs link to the Style guide. One of them is supposed to link to the "Small to medium tasks" page but actually links to the Style guide.
  • I think there should be a tab for "Recommended sources" and our suggestions for sources should not be transcluded into the Style guide page. Sourcing and style are separate issues; one is not the parent topic of the other.

Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. I've added a tab for "Recommended sources", for which I added yet another icon. As I commented above I'm not a big fan of the icons. But as others do like them, I'm going with the flow :) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do I add to “pages that link here?”[edit]

I think the climate change mitigation article and talk pages should link here, and vice versa, but it doesn’t look like they do. How do I do that? Thanks. Loupgrru (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's already a link to us on the talk page. In the orange(ish) box up top labeled "This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:". Is something like that what you mean? --Licks-rocks (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for responding. I’m pretty new, so there’s some things I’m still figuring out. I see the orangish box, but I don’t see that section here, although I’ve seen that on other pages. If I do a word search for “This article is of interest...,” your comment is the only occurrence. I don’t understand what I’m doing wrong. Loupgrru (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can see all the pages of interest to the project at Category:WikiProject Climate change articles but the link to popular pages at the top of the project may be more useful. Hope that helps Chidgk1 (talk) 13:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You’re right, it’s there. Thanks! Loupgrru (talk) 12:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I go to Talk:Climate change mitigation and search for "Wikiproject Climate change" I see a link to this Wikiproject. Regarding having the Climate change mitigation article link to here, Wikipedia policies and guidelines don't allow that. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 14:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe that’s the problem; maybe I’m getting confused with the difference between pages and articles. You say you see that CC mitigation links to CPP — that’s good. It seems like CPP should also link to CCM. But I should be looking for a link from here to the CCM page, not the CCM article. Maybe I can find the CCM page linked in the list @Chidgk1 provided a link to (thanks, Chidgk1). Loupgrru (talk) 12:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I'm not clear on what you're asking. Perhaps it would help if you could tell us: 1) What does CPP stand for?, 2) The URLs of exactly what pages you want to link to what, and 3) Why do you want these links? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, CPP should have been PCC for Project Climate Change. Another Wikimedian helped me find what I was looking for. Still, I appreciate your interest. Thanks! Loupgrru (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement![edit]

Articles for improvement star.svg

Please note that Meadow, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by MusikBot talk 00:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI teamReply[reply]

Should there be significantly more or less top importance articles?[edit]

Or is the current 59 about right? I ask because I might later ask a question about which should be top and it seems easier to agree on an approximate number first Chidgk1 (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's slightly more than the Wikipedia-average. We have 1.4% as top-importance, and Wikipedia has 0.8% as top-importance. So we're correct in the ballpark. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia articles that tie to climate mitigation - the potential to improve those ties[edit]

Hi all, as you can see in two talks above dealing with WP grants to work on individual climate action on food and ag and references and one on a survey of users, part of our CSteps team's work is to tie existing Wikipedia pages to climate mitigation efforts that individual people can take regarding food and agriculture, so as to help create effective grassroots actions to help individuals asking "how can I fight climate change."

We just completed a review of a number of Wikipages based on our experience in this arena of individual and community action - of what subjects can be tied to actual food/ag action, and whether they are or not. We also rated them using WP ratings, etc. using one of the tables that @EMsmile put together, I believe. And we noted whether they answered the questions in the CSteps user survey. (@Loupgrru is doublechecking that critical user questions have been covered.)

We are sure you probably know of others, so any who'd like to take a look please feel free to add to the list (with a note of your username if you don't mind.) And perhaps help us as a group to set priorities. Our goal is to link at least 30 of the articles to climate change/action via a sentence or two and then links to appropriate climate change mitigation articles. For instance, althought environmental impacts are mentioned, it is not mentioned in the Insects as Food, Foodscaping, and Roof gardens articles that they can be useful very climate-change fighting actions (Roof gardens on so many levels, pun unintended), nor links to climate change pages given. We'd like to change that.

Shoshana (whose username I'm going to have to memorize) is also using this to create an outline for a subpage on Individual Climate Actions regarding Food and Agriculture - that then perhaps we can discuss. As per a different talk here, our page is broader than Low-Carbon diet and some other pages suggested - those would have links within the Food/Ag Action article) But that's still coming (this next week) and then open for discussion.

Thank you! Sorry we've been kindof quiet. We want to make sure we work with you all on this, but we wanted to present a framework first, and some stuff set us behind. Cheers! AnnetteCSteps (talk) 19:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks fantastic! Thanks for the update. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi AnnetteCSteps, thanks for the update. It's a very useful table. If I were you I would also add the daily pageviews to the table (e.g. daily pageviews averaged for last 6 months). I think articles with high pageviews should generally get priority. For your interest / comparison, the article list that we work on as part of our project is here. But I like that you are targeting articles that are not per se about climate change but that need to have climate change content in them, e.g. plant-based diet.
You mentioned: We also rated them using WP ratings, etc. using one of the tables that @EMsmile put together, I believe.. I am not sure what you were referring to specifically? The WP ratings just come from the talk pages, right? In our project we actually use a more detailed quality scoring system to try and figure out which are high C or low C, high B or low B... Our scoring system is here (comments welcome). - Good luck with your project! EMsmile (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AnnetteCSteps Interesting. Perhaps I missed a key or note somewhere but what does the yellow shading mean please? Chidgk1 (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Updates to the Recommended sources page[edit]

Hi everyone. I've just done a major reorganization of Wikipedia:WikiProject Climate change/Recommended sources and also expanded it with some new content. I tried to not change the meaning of any existing content unless it clearly failed to align with accepted policies and guidelines. Feedback and further edits are welcome.

One issue that could use further clarification is what criteria we use to say whether an organization is a good source for facts. For instance, we have Climate Action Tracker listed as a recommended source but I'm not sure why it's better than REN21, which is listed as a source that requires in-line attribution. For country-specific mitigation and adaptation issues, we often use think-tanks as sources. Should we be doing this? If yes, how do we decide how to choose the right think-tanks? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your work there! Really important.
I don't think REN21 usually requires inline attribution. They publish a lot of historical statistics which are perfectly fine to cite as fact. When they make predictions, they may have a bit of a bias towards renewables and in-line attribution may make sense. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes we should use think tanks. For example in the articles I edit on Turkey is extremely useful. But I am afraid I don’t know how to choose which ones. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wouldn't go that far. Almost all think tanks have bosses that may not always be clear. In general, I would use them with strong caution. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Think tanks are a grey area.There has been some discussion on WP:RSN noting the wide range of quality in think tanks: . What makes the current task easier is that it is a page about recommended sources rather than permissible sources - it is about the sources that we as a community regard as high quality. The page doesn't try to define the minimum bar for quality, which is harder. While we unpack the grey areas, I'll remove the ones that have been challenged by anyone. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 14:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Content removed[edit]

Further to the above discussion, I've removed the following for now as "recommended sources" and "sources to use with caution" are different things:

  • Materials from industry coalitions or think tanks such as REN21 or the Breakthrough Institute. Such sources can be used when we are reporting what these groups say, but this usually requires inline attribution e.g., "According to Jane, Jack also ran up the hill. There may be exceptions so each case is weighed on its own merit. Often there will be reliable media reports to cite instead.
  • On the flip side, also be cautious with from environmental advocacy groups and political parties. The same cautions about self-published sources and inline attribution apply.
Reputable organizations and websites

Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Project Drawdown[edit]

Do people think Project Drawdown should be regarded as a high-quality reliable source? Are there any caveats about using it? It does not look like a typical WP:SCIRS publication but it as far as I know it is well-regarded. Femke, I know you're are travelling and I imagine you will want to opine, so we won't make decisions on this unti you're back ;) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does anyone have time/interest to get involved with effects of climate change on human health, in particular with regards to images, especially for the lead? I am thinking of a 2x2 image collage for the lead, see on the talk page here: The article is still quite small with regards to pageviews (100-200 views per day) but I think it's likely up and coming. I've recently been working on content improvements with the help of an expert and also the wonderful User:FeydHuxtable; so content wise it's pretty good now, I would say but it needs more/better images. (interestingly, the related article heat illness could also do with a bit of TLC; had previously asked at WikiProject Medicine about that). EMsmile (talk) 09:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I've brought this to the attention of Climate Visuals (re: my post above). Hopefully they can help source some images, is there anything in particular you are looking for? TatjanaClimate (talk) 11:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's do something about the article carbon source[edit]

I've just added this to the talk page of carbon source but also solicitating wider inputs by adding it here as well: At this stage, the existing article called carbon source is not about climate change. I've added a hatnote accordingly. But I think we need to rework this: It might be best to either rename the existing 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. What do you all think? EMsmile (talk) 13:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Avoiding the term "natural disaster"[edit]

The term natural disaster is a misnomer, and especially in the context of climate change it's not particularly helpful. Often, things like floods or droughts are referred to as "natural disasters". I see it's not being used in our climate change and effects of climate change articles. So that's good. But I think the Wikipedia article natural disaster (which has high pageviews, about 3000 per day) should be renamed and merged into either disaster or natural hazard. I've written about that here, please join the discussion: EMsmile (talk) 09:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I understand what you are going for, but natural disaster is a commonly used term and an important qualification that has clear meaning to people. People go to wikipedia for natural disasters because they are interested to learn about examples and see lists of them and see them compared and so forth.
"Natural hazard" is a rarely used term outside of academia. People searching on natural disaster don't just want the list of risks, they want the impacts.
People also don't go to wikipedia for "disaster", because it's too wide a category to have encyclopedic value. Disaster can refer to a relationship that blew up or the sinking of the titanic or the outcome of a war on a losing country.
It seems like you are trying to force people to stop using the word "natural" because it's not correct given human control and understanding of nature. I think that sort of qualification is best done in the lead, where the term is defined. We don't eliminate terms like "eugenics" from wikipedia because we disagree with them, instead we carefully describe what makes them incorrect.
Consider that many natural disasters like earthquakes can be mitigated by human action like making earthquake safe buildings, but that doesn't mean the disaster is not of natural origin. Storms and such can be more or less likely because of human activities like climate change, but that doesn't mean the storm didn't originate in nature, it's just that people have modified nature. If an asteroid hits the Earth, is it not a natural disaster because we could have dedicated more resources to asteroid detection and deflection? To go even further, the butterfly effect means that every storm inherently arises from chaos, so should we say that everything is causal and nothing is natural? Point being that we can get too pedantic about this. Natural disaster is a useful category even if humans effect the odds or can prepare better. Efbrazil (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Natural disaster article itself includes critiques of the term, even in its lead. These critiques have the beneficial effect of disambiguating and explaining the term(s). Efbrazil makes good points, which I think are in line with WP:COMMONNAME, even if the "common name" isn't exhaustively precise. To merge the Natural disaster article out of existence would disregard WP:COMMONNAME. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, thanks for these inputs. I agree that natural disaster is likely the "commonname" but there is still scope for optimising how this is represented on Wikipedia. The critique of the term (in the definition section and in the lead) is something that I added / expanded on today. (I just want to make sure that you read the full explanation of why the term is problematic and additional refs (written by Kevin Blanchard) here: (?). He is more eloquent about it than I am.) I think especially in the context of climate change, the term "natural disaster" when applied to those things that climate change is impacting on (droughts, floods, wildfires and coastal flooding) is quite misleading. There is a human contribution there, not just "nature doing its thing".
But an argument for keeping the article title as it is, is also the example that we are keeping Third World even though it is no longer a "correct" term, whereas developing country is "more correct" (some would say it should be only Global South etc).
Looking at the article natural hazard, I am finding it rather weak and overlapping to 80% with natural disaster... Could an argument be made that natural hazard should be merged into natural disaster at least? One could say they belong together (even if they are not the same), just like we recently merged carbon offsets and credits into one article even though it's two separate concepts. The concepts are so closely related that they might be better off to be dealt with in one article, not two. This would already be an improvement in my opinion. And the (theoretically) correct term might be disasters linked to natural hazards but I know this would seem overly academic for a Wikipedia article title. EMsmile (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a distinction between hazard (a chance of negative effect) and a disaster (an actual negative effect). That said, practically all of Natural hazard is about actual disasters, whether to humans or nature in general. Accordingly, I think Natural hazard could be changed into a redirect and merged into Natural disaster. However, the closely intertwined relationship of cause and effect (humans causing natural events like climate change) argues that the WP:COMMONNAME article Natural disaster should remain—perhaps including an explanatory section like the /* Definitions and scope */ section in terminology Climate change mitigation. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
UNDRR uses the term 'hazardous event' to refer to an actual effect which could result in a disaster. This term also seems to get simplified to 'hazard', so the hazard can either refer to the category (flood, landslide etc and its potential) or to the specific event/process (which can be slow onset or sudden, so it is quite nuanced I think). It doesn't really surprise me that the article is mostly about the negative impacts. If natural hazards do not contribute much to risks of negative impacts/disasters, then there is not much concern about them! I do think the article could do a much better job of explaining risks, and how these connect to disasters. I am against merging it because I think the risk discussion fits better in natural hazards than natural disaster (because of the misnomer issue). Richarit (talk) 17:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would currently lean towards integrating the content that is currently at natural hazard (which is not much) into natural disaster and then explaining both terms together in the one article.
I find it interesting to examine the different Wikipedia language versions: The natural disaster article exists in 102 languages and they mostly seem to use the word "nature" in them. The "natural hazard" article exists in only 12 languages, and not in German for example (which I find telling because the German Wikipedia is very detailed on anything to do with climate change). Maybe at some point in the future the article title could be changed to something else although there seems to be no obvious alternative to the term?
When I asked Kevin Blanchard about this he said: "Instead of "natural disaster", we recommend simply "disaster". We (the campaign) argue that the context of the piece should clarify whether the author is referring to a natural hazard or a technological/ anthropomorphic hazard linked disaster. Our view is that there is no need for a clarification before and we try to state that it simplifies the discussion." He also said: "Maybe something like "Disasters with links to natural hazards". It keeps enough distance to allow an explanation why the disasters aren't caused by the hazard but also makes clear that in the process of our failing to prepare, the natural hazard is the first step."
In Google Trends, the term "disaster" gets far more "search interest" than "natural disaster" or "natural hazard", see here. In Wikipedia the pageview comparison looks like this. So natural disaster about 3000 pageviews per day (with a decreasing trend), disaster about 1500 per day (relatively stable, no clear trend) and natural hazard about 300 per day (also decreasing trend).
In general, in particular with regards to floods, I find it quite odd to call floods a "natural disaster" when there is often so much human influence into what makes a flood disastrous, like building houses in flood plains, below sea level, robbing rivers of their natural flood plains and so forth. EMsmile (talk) 07:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This seems like a discussion that should take place at Talk:Natural disaster. Per our guidelines on appropriate notification, a neutrally worded link to the discussion may be placed on the talk pages of relevant WikiProjects. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed name change to economic analysis of climate change[edit]

I am copying here something that I had written on the talk page of economics of climate change three days ago, for wider discussion: I am proposing to change the name of the article economics of climate change to economic analysis of climate change. I think it would make it clearer to our readers what to expect to see in the article. The word "economics" is too vague. Note the article economic impacts of climate change would be regarded as a sub-article for this article. - This proposal was prompted via a discussion with an external reviewer of the Wikipedia article (see here). EMsmile (talk) 12:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]