Talk:REDD+

Split article into REDD+ and UN-REDD Programme

As previously noted, the article is way too long - it's currently at 98kb, which is around about where WP:SIZERULE says the article should absolutely be divided. Currently, it seems like the article contains two separate topic - REDD+ and UN-REDD Programme. In fact, the article itself recongises that these are two distinct programs. Both of them are notable, but in the interests of being concise/not confusing the two, it seems logical to split up the article into two separate (and shorter!) ones. OliverEastwood talk 10:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

It was merged per Talk:United Nations REDD Programme#Merger Proposal and I feel it would be better rewritten to remove duplication and excess detail rather than split. However that would be a big job and as I am not going to do it I guess I should not vote on this split proposal unless someone else volunteers to do the work. Dunno if it would be beyond the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors but I could ask if no one steps forward. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Good to know - I saw the merger notice literally the minute after I posted this so feel pretty dumb for not checking beforehand! I do regret not being around for the merger discussion, as I do think UN-REDD and REDD+ should be separate. It seems in the discussion like there was some confusion around the 3 and how they are distinct from each other, so while I do agree with the comments that REDD and REDD+ should be in the same article (as was correctly mentioned, one superceded the other), I feel that as UN-REDD is a completely separate mechanism it merits its own article (albeit with some rewrites to make the distinction clearer).

However, that's just my feeling on it, and if a consensus has already been reached then I'll stick with that. I can crack on with rewriting as I'm very much in the REDD+ space right now (literally just finished a uni course on it!) - will update in a separate section here. OliverEastwood talk 21:10, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Great that you are rewriting. @TatjanaClimate and yourself no doubt know better than me whether this should be one article or two Chidgk1 (talk) 06:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Hiya, unfortunately I haven't had any time to work on this and I'd welcome contributions from @OliverEastwood (thank you!) After looking at the article(s) I wouldn't be opposed to a REDD+ (incl redirect from REDD and Reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries) and a UN-REDD Programme article as long as the distinctions between the two are apparent from the first few sentences of the lead - I'd strongly advocate for one of those italicised sentences "This article is about... for ... see [wikilink]" at the top of the page (forgive me, not sure if it has an official name).

A lot of the confusion I was hearing from users around REDD vs UN-REDD I think results from the articles not doing a great job of explaining the concepts they are about from the outset. It's likely most people would be more reading REDD+ over UN-REDD Programme, but with all these confusing acronyms they might land up on UN-REDD Programme by accident. @OliverEastwood I don't suppose there is something one resonably could add to the title of "UN-REDD Programme" to further differentate it from REDD+? Like "(governance)" or something?

@OliverEastwood happy to hear you have time for rewriting! Much of the exisitng content on REDD/+ focuses on dense technical descriptions of the conventions and policies behind REDD/+, so not much use to a lay person who is just trying to wrap their head around what REDD+ even is in the first place. TatjanaClimate (talk) 10:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Heya @TatjanaClimate, thanks so much for all these thoughts, and apologies for being away from the thread/article for a while - just amidst a ridiculously busy week at work! However, next week I should be able to make a start on this. A REDD+ and UN-REDD split would be great as a starting point, but as you say both need a bunch of work to ensure they can be understood as distinct from each other.

As I say, I'll make a start next week and can maybe give you a ping through on the next pages to get some thoughts, hopefully by next Friday. OliverEastwood talk 13:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @OliverEastwood are you still planning to work on this article? I've been holding off editing, but am keen for the article to improve. TatjanaClimate (talk) 10:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, really sorry but work got incredibly busy so I don't think I'll be able to put work into this for a wee while. Earliest I can do anything is September unfortunately. Should have said something but I am so caught up in other things that it slipped my mind! Apologies again. OliverEastwood talk 07:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, no worries! I just wanted to check if you had anything planned before I do any editing. I'll see if I can put some time into this article in the meantime, but welcome your insights when you have time. TatjanaClimate (talk) 12:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Support split I would like to improve this article but the most obvious first step to make is resplitting the REDD+ and United Nations REDD Programme articles. Would anyone be opposed to me redoing this split? This article is too difficult to read for the layperson as it stands. Yourecoveredinbees (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

FYI: I’ve posted a request for input on this split at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climate change. Yourecoveredinbees (talk) 16:34, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Support split: The two programs should not have been merged; there is way too much detail and bureaucratic language: and the topics need to be explained much more clearly and briefly. Radical rewriting is needed, including for neutrality (NPOV). Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:43, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Update (3 January 2026): OK I went ahead and split the former "UN-REDD Programme" section into a separate article at United Nations REDD Programme, and left a summary-style pointer in REDD and REDD+ ({{Main}}). Attribution templates were added on both talk pages per WP:COPYWITHIN. If anyone has concerns about scope, structure, or where particular material should live, please comment here. Yourecoveredinbees (talk) 05:06, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 5 January 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 05:08, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

---

REDD and REDD+ → REDD+ – The article primarily describes the UNFCCC climate-mitigation framework commonly referred to in reliable sources as REDD+. The current title REDD and REDD+ reads like an explanatory phrase rather than the common name. Per WP:TITLE/WP:COMMONNAME and conciseness, the article should be titled REDD+. The history/terminology section can continue to explain the earlier term REDD. Yourecoveredinbees (talk) 09:26, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

• Move: Given that the split in the thread above has been made, this seems uncontroversial now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Move per recommendation, Sadads (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.