Talk:2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference

Climate Adaptation Summit (CAS 2021)

I suggest include: Climate Adaptation Summit (CAS 2021). --BoldLuis (talk) 10:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Dates of Conference

In https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-dates-agreed-for-cop26-united-nations-climate-change-conference are dates of conference November 1–12. Jirka Dl (talk) 04:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done FollowTheTortoise (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Better logo

https://ibb.co/v32f8nC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4F05:3AC5:34C7:4CD6:65D7:A768 (talk) 10:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

How is it better? And if I upload it to Wikimedia Commons what do I put for the author and copyright please? Chidgk1 (talk) 13:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Name

What do the letters C.O.P stand for? 90.249.148.253 (talk) 07:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

See the 3rd sentence of the article: "The conference is the 26th Conference of the Parties (COP)...". -- DeFacto (talk). 08:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Read it twice and still missed that! Thank you. 90.249.148.253 (talk) 08:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

"under the co-presidency of the Alok Sharma and Nippy."

Nippy? Looks like this has been hacked, but I don't know how to fix it.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/nicola-sturgeon-explains-nippy-sweetie-nickname-1442087 Thanks for keeping an eye on the article. If any further Scots jokes appear just click "view history" and "undo" Chidgk1 (talk) 13:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Should all the heads of state attending be in list format?

If not how do we decide who to mention? Perhaps a list at the end of the article (not volunteering) or just a link to a webpage if there is one? Chidgk1 (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Pie chart

I think it should be removed because it is only only one view of the problem (e.g. other charts cover cumulative emissions and per person) so is not a neutral point of view. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I've hidden the chart for now, until there is consensus that this should be included. —AFreshStart (talk) 12:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Should India's net-zero by 2070 claims be included?

Third-largest emitter of CO₂, latest target date (and later than UK govt or others were expecting). A significant change nonetheless:

• Webster, Ben; Burgess, Kaya; Philp, Catherine (1 November 2020). "Cop26: India puts off net zero to 2070 and deals blow to climate hopes". The Times.
• Vittozzi, Katerina (1 November 2021). "COP26: India has given a distant net-zero target and is now asking the world for cash". Sky News.
• Vaughan, Adam (2 November 2021). "COP26: Why India's 2070 net zero pledge is better news than it sounds". New Scientist.
• "COP26: India PM Narendra Modi pledges net zero by 2070". BBC News. 2 November 2021.

—AFreshStart (talk) 12:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I think yes but only very briefly - with a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_India#Policies_and_legislation for all the details Chidgk1 (talk) 12:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Added the content (wasn't sure where would be best, so created a separate section). —AFreshStart (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Should we add a picture of Alok Sharma?

Given his position as President for COP26, should we have a picture of Alok Sharma in the article? We could perhaps replace the current first picture of more generalist politicians with the relevant specialist. RomanSpa (talk) 14:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes I don't suppose Joe Biden would mind if his pic was replaced! Chidgk1 (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I think President Biden is in the second picture. RomanSpa (talk) 16:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes fine by me if you replace him. Ah I see what you mean - I think Boris and the Italian PM should stay in as Italy and UK are co-hosts. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with adding Alok Sharma's picture. I got no opinion on whether Joe Biden's picture must be sacrificed or not but i do like to propose some candidates for Alok Sharma's picture.

1) This is from the official page of COP i believe

2) This is from the Government of UK

I hope both of the pictures are copyright free--LostCitrationHunter (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I am not a copyright expert so you might find it easier to search Wikimedia Commons for "cop26 Alok Sharma" as hopefully those pics have already been checked for copyright Chidgk1 (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Security guy picture

Perhaps it is common in your country but in UK I think it is very unusual for part of the country to become UN territory. So I would like to put the picture back as an illustration of that. But perhaps the caption could be improved to explain that better? Chidgk1 (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

"Colorful attendees"

Colourful attendees

This photo on the right is currently in the article with the caption "Colourful attendees," which seems a little patronizing in tone, vague, and unencyclopedic. However, I think it is a good photo to demonstrate the scale of the efforts at the conference. Does anyone know what country the subjects are representing so we can get a better caption up there? Thanks. 209.2.235.204 (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree, "colourful attendees" could be interpreted as patronising, and doesn't contribute any information that isn't already self-evident from the image (unless one is colour-blind). To me the faces and costumes look South-East Asian. The hair-coverings and long sleeves indicate Islamic influence, so Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, and Brunei are top suspects. Ypna (talk) 23:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree, the term "colorful attendees" can be viewed in a pejorative manner. Looking up the word "colorful", I found these definitions: "having much or varied color; bright" & "a controversial and colorful character". While the first definition would apply, the second would not. Perhaps saying "Attendees with colorful fashion or clothing" would be a better caption and strike any pejorative interpretation. Jurisdicta (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you all!--108.41.198.22 (talk) 15:59, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

They're presenters at the Indonesia booth.[1] --Paul_012 (talk) 09:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 8 November 2021

2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference → COP26 – Virtually all RS coverage is using the short name, which already redirects here. For example, I did a Google News limited to the last 24 hours and found 3 pages of results under the current title but 20 pages for "COP26". (t · c) buidhe 11:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. I get results that show the full name and then use the short name, as is common with abbreviations. That doesn't mean the article title needs to use it the unclear short version when the long one is perfectly fine. Gonnym (talk) 15:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

That would be a reasonable argument if most sources were using both the long and short name, however, in fact most sources are just using the short name. IMO scores better at recognizability, naturalness, and concision. (t · c) buidhe 15:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. Unnecessary. As you say, the short name already redirects here so there is no issue of readers looking for it and not finding it. This is the 26th such conference, so unless you're proposing to change all of them, it's illogical to change solely this one. Crowsus (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. I see big problem with using "COP" as this means generally Conference of Parties - it is used not only for UNFCCC, it can be also COP of other conventions, i.e. Biodiversity Convention.Jirka Dl (talk) 15:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference is a better name for this article because through this name people can understand that United Nations held a conference on climate change in 2021. COP26 is a poor name because it is not giving any idea about the subject. Muhammad 17:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. By next month the abbreviation "COP26" will be as meaningless as COP25. Thincat (talk) 08:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

'Question: If a redirect is created for COP26, is this picked up by Google etc? John Cummings (talk) 14:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article is on Page 1 of both DuckDuckGo and Google when I just tried it using COP26. NeilOnWiki (talk) 15:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. I agree it's unnecessary with the current COP26 redirect page; and is inconsistent with other page titles for the previous conferences. Also I think we need to be explicit about its subject: Conference of the parties lists a bunch of unrelated COPs. NeilOnWiki (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose - as its predecessors are called Year United Nations Climate Change Conference. GoodDay (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose While the climate summit has always called as "COP24, COP25", COP26, etc." in most RS, we generally didn't use unencyclopedic or acronym name for an conference. 125.167.58.66 (talk) 08:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Changing dates of conference

Cop26 has been extended. However it's still correct that it was planned to end on 12th November. So I'm not sure how to indicate this? The article lead should probably have the info that it has been extended, but otherwise I'm not sure where to add in this information. MalB404 Ⓐ 🏴 (talk) 11:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

References

My understanding is that COP12 was the most recent COP to finish on the date announced. Though past COP articles are in varying states, perhaps the best approach is to just mention the actual dates it was held in the lead, with the initial intention of ending yesterday somewhere in Negotiations or elsewhere in the body. — Bilorv (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)