Talk:Index of climate change articles

Comment

I have created this page due to content being removed from the Glossary of climate change article with the explanation that "th(i)s is a glossary not a topic list". Well this is a topic list and that reason is therefore inapplicable.

Inclusion of additional topics to this article by contributors is welcome. --Theo Pardilla (talk) 12:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"Inclusion of additional topics to this article by contributors is welcome". I did not realise that this needed to be spelled out. I thought this was the case with all articles.... -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

@Theo Pardilla, I would like to see more content broader mitigation strategies based on ecosystem restoration. There is already some relevant content, for example the biotic pump stub, but it is not in the climate portal. I am a newbie under the bonnet of Wikipedia. How do I engage with page creators and learn more about the process? PeterBruce-Iri (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Copy of Glossary of climate change

This page is a copy of Glossary of climate change with a few other articles thrown in. There is no reason to have two pages that are essentially the same. I propose that this is turned into a list in the same style as List of conservation topics, List of architecture topics etc. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It was originally called List of climate change topics, so you could revert that change. Andrewjlockley (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Link to article on the Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident

User:William M. Connolley has reverted the addition of a link to the article on Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident with the comment "NOTNEWS". It seems pretty clear to me that WP:NOT#NEWS does not apply in this instance, because this page is nothing more than an index to Wikipedia articles that deal with climate change. We can talk about whether or not there should be an article on the Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, but as it stands, Wikipedia does have such an article. Given that the article exists, it seems pretty clear that it should be included on the index page. If we don't believe it's an appropriate topic for Wikipedia, then the appropriate recourse would seem to be to nominate it for deletion, instead of deleting any links to it from other articles. EastTN (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why NOTNEWS doesn't apply William M. Connolley (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with EastTN here. If one is going to have an article on this "event" (which seems weird to me, but whatever), then including it in a general list of climate change related articles seems to make sense. Dragons flight (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

We have an article, even though we shouldn't, because trying to delete it is doomed. Not linking to the article is not doomed William M. Connolley (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The question about NOTNEWS is a valid one. Here's why I don't think it applies in this case. This is, of course, a very recent event that's still developing. That means that any article will most likely change rapidly - and Wikipedia must not cover it in the same way that a newspaper would.

On the other hand, it also seems immediately clear that this is an incident that will be significant for the climate change debate (whether or not it ultimately turns out to have any significance for climate change science) for some period of time. The arguments and allegations simply aren't going to go away anytime soon. As a thought experiment, imagine a historian writing a book about the history of the climate change debate sometime during 2011 - while we don't know how the incident will ultimately play out, we can already be pretty sure that it would show up in that history. Bottom line, it seems to me that we can already make a judgment that it is notable with relation to the debate. Given the nature of the debate, the emails involved seem certain to get more than 15 minutes of fame. EastTN (talk) 20:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, I don't see any real benefit to the encyclopedia in deliberately making it difficult for readers to find the article. It may be a minor issue, but as long as it's appropriately covered, there's no real harm done. EastTN (talk) 20:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

For a page that gets less than 2000 hits per month, I don't see this as anything worth arguing over. -Atmoz (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

@WMC: NOTNEWS would be an argument to delete the article. If you concede that attempting to delete the article would be "doomed", then you're admitting a de facto community consensus to keep it (or at least no consensus to delete it). If there is to be an article about climate change on Wikipedia, then that article should be listed in the index. Certainly if The Day After Tomorrow goes here, the hacking incident article does as well. The only deletion argument that applies to this discussion is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Oren0 (talk) 00:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Rv: why

I took out climategate - including redirects is pointless William M. Connolley (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not. This is what almost everyone else calls the thing. Why make it harder to find? --Pete Tillman (talk) 02:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It may be in the circles you move in. But that article was switched to a redirect for a good reason, which I'm not going to rehash here William M. Connolley (talk) 09:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)