Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climate change

Hi all,

On the other side of a lot of work now, we went back and revised a table of topical readings/references for WP Editors that we had compiled as part of a Rapid Grant from Wiki Foundation. Our goal was to find overview readings/references for at least 10 main topics on climate actions (energy, food, transportation, personal....) to share - items that we can use to help structure WP articles or our own articles, or to be able to quickly answer questions about climate action topics. We based this idea off of the previous Africa climate project page's table of recommended references.

Luckily, one of our contractors, @resilientsage (Shoshana), came back after a year hiatus and took over the project from the first draft we shared. Shoshana is a trained researcher and has worked for the EPA on agriculture and food topics, and she (and I some) reviewed and edited the table to meet Wikipedia standards more strongly. Shoshana notes:

This reference list is for climate wiki editors (and wiki editors writing outside WP) to consider reading and conveniently have available to cite when adding to climate pages specific to topics, as well as to build upon (i.e., add articles into).

Under the column *Wikipedia Status*:

a) The sources listed as "Recommended for Wikipedia" are meant to be solid references about relevant topics and we believe likely to meet wiki community standards.

b) As examples and to consider using again, we have included select citations used in climate-related Wikipedia articles as “From Wikipedia”.

c) Because wiki standards are specific to context, we have also created a list of potential references that may be useful but are unclear as to whether suitable for potential inclusion/or that depend on context: i.e., the "To Be Discussed."

So, for instance, if you want to write about climate and transportation - there are some potential articles that might be of interest - just look for Transportation under the column Topics.

We really want this to be of help by being a starting point for discussion about key articles we can/should use, and for editors to add to, comment on, etc, as time goes by. I think the first step is to have @Clayoquot and any others interested look at the Google sheet, and then we can create a subpage under the Recommended Sources where this could be the start of a framework of resources we recommend each other read on particular action topics.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d3nGAncF973_pnmDknke8nGL_fMNxuoXmeMRYiH3Abk/edit?gid=0#gid=0

Cheers, Annette AnnetteCSteps (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Annette. Sorry, I am not willing to spend more time working on initiatives to create lists of sources. I cannot justify further investing my volunteer time in a project that seems to be more about spreadsheets than about editing articles. I know your heart is in the right place. I think what Wikipedia needs most is for strong researchers and writers like you to edit articles. I could be totally wrong though - maybe someone else here will find this kind of spreadsheet useful enough for their work that they offer to review it. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Clayoquot. I didn't mean to automatically volunteer you. Just to let you know, the references for WP editors is actually a side part of the deliverable that we are providing. (another side was the climate action Quotables) - and were mostly because we already had the start of a key-articles database to help answer questions from our users and for our writers to refer to, and we thought it might be useful for you all. Learning your standards has been helpful to our writers as well. We tended towards primary science or popular lay articles to pass on to our readers, not secondary overview. So working with you as helped us.

Anyway, the main deliverable is the food/ag climate action article that we've written in my sandbox that I think you may have seen parts of? Now that my main editor is back after 8 months, we're making it more of an encyclopedic tone. We need to doublecheck it against work in WP that's been done in the meantime, but then we can either add it as a page, or more likely, put sections in existing pages. @resilientsage will do that comparison.

In the meantime, anyone else in taking a brief look at the articles? We can just add it as a link to a subpage at the bottom of Recommended Sources. Those who use it great - those who don't, no worries. There's a place for comments and additions, and we'll maintain it. Thanks. AnnetteCSteps (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Back in June I cut and pasted a bit from an IPCC report into Carbon sequestration and then inadequately tried to paraphrase it. So @Diannaa quite correctly warned me and hid the edits because of https://www.ipcc.ch/copyright/ In 2021 there was a suggestion at https://apps.ipcc.ch/eventmanager/documents/65/240320210608-INF.%206,%20Rev.%203%20-%20Progress%20Report%20-%20TG%20Data.pdf that AR6 be creative commons but I cannot find out why this was not done as a whole not just partly for data and images. Did anyone ever ask the IPCC why the reports are not under the same creative commons licence as Wikipedia? If not I will ask (but don’t hold your breath for a reply). Chidgk1 (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that would be so much better! (and paraphrasing content from IPCC reports is so hard; I struggle with that all the time) There was a previous discussion on this two years ago, see in the archive here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climate_change/Archive_2#Petition_to_open_IPCC_6

I also spoke about it with User:Jonathanlynn who made some enquiries with the IPCC secretariat. It was a dead end though. I think they are worried/scared that someone could change the statements and graphs and give them different meaning and results. I think RCraig09 and Efbrazil have worked hard on making many of the IPCC graphs accessible for us by re-creating them from scratch in a way that the new graphs don't infringe copyright. This is a very laudable effort! EMsmile (talk) 09:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

20WattSphere (talk) 12:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi all

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

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 11:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

Hi all

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

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 12:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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