Talk:State of the Climate

Merge

I'm proposing that this article (State of the Climate) be merged into the NOAA article. There's no real reason why a (probably) non-expandable one-paragraph article shouldn't be there.

I'm proposing the talk be carried out here, contrary to custom, because other possible merge targets include NCDC and Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.—Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• Agree. They should be merged. Shadowjams (talk) 11:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• Disagree - at least 3 reasons:

1. the noaa article is already long, & the material would be lost in it; this is a logical candidate for a subsidiary piece.

...because, point 2.

the "State of the climate" report is a distinct & specific item, produced annually; it's not hard to differentiate it from noaa in general, or other noaa activities. it is also a collabourative effort, involving more than "just noaa".

...leading to point 3.

the article clearly has MUCH room for expansion; with updates every year (covering the annual report, changes in the overall situation, etc.).

yes, it's a stub now & we have a sad lack of knowledgeable people working on it currently; BUT in an ideal world, there should be people writing up a summary for each year's report, & linking them in.

should also be possible to add significantly more "general info".

Lx 121 (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly Agree - If every government report received its own article, imagine the amount of individual articles would be created. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • 3 points: 1. this isn't "any report". it's a comprehensive annual survey of global climate. anyone moderately serious about studying the subject would need a year-by-year breakdown of these reports. 2. given the quantity of material generated by noaa annually, it's impractical to cover it all in the noaa article. more important/more notable publications should get their own pages; that's well-established precedent. 'ALSO' as stated in the article text itself, the report is an "extra-ordinary" effort, produced by noaa as a collabouration with outside persons/agencies, not simply an internal project. 3. what's wrong with having lots of articles, that cover important topics thoroughly? wikipedia is an online encyclopedia; maybe we should start a "nutshell" wikipedia version, i'd support that, but this here ain' it. this is the big-time full-sized wp! xD Lx 121 (talk) 07:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

[AikenB1]: Keep it OUT. I for one, is representing others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AikenB1 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• Disagree for reasons stated above. I'll see if I can make the time to expand on this article. I'm sure other readers would like to see a summary of the reports conclusions or main points.--CurtisSwain (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)