![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Late Glacial redirects to this page, and I don't think it should. I have seen it used for the entire Weichselian, that is the whole period from the end of the Eemian until the end of the Pleistocene. This interstadial is only a short fraction of that age. 2601:441:4900:A6E0:1C71:391E:AA64:8B75 ( talk) 15:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
All of the (handful) of recent papers that use both terms say that they are completely equivalent (Last Interglacial Interstadial and BøllingâAllerød Interstadial anyway) e.g. [1], [2] [3], therefore these two articles are duplicates. If there are actual (rather than percieved) discrepancies between usage the two terms in current literature then they can just be discussed in the text rather than warranting having two articles. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 21:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi! I am asking experts on this topic to take part in this discussion: /info/en/?search=Talk:Climate_change#Resolving_the_issue_of_rapid_rates_of_change Efbrazil ( talk) 17:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Even after the recent merge, we still have Bølling oscillation and Allerød oscillation, both of which are barely referenced stubs. Do we need a formal proposal & discussion to merge those as well, or can it just be done immediately? InformationToKnowledge ( talk) 13:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
So, I had resolved what was by far the most important issue with this article - the persistent implication that this period had represented rapid and worldwide warming, as opposed to substantial Northern Hemisphere warming, Southern Hemisphere cooling, and little net change globally - which is what the WP:RS, now cited within the article, actually say.
However, there is still a significant issue with either completely unreferenced paragraphs (usually commented out by now), or with large blocks of text that appear to be based on a single source (i.e. the entirety of the "Siberian Plain" and "North America"). Would the other editors who have taken part in the merge discussion be interested in addressing this issue?
Additionally, I also commented out some paragraphs which appear to reference events that have taken place outside of this period. I.e. anything which says "after the Last Glacial Maximum" should probably be in the Oldest Dryas article, since that was the actual period which directly followed LGM. Likewise, "centuries after B-A" (used in another paragraph) likely belongs in Younger Dryas. I have not checked the references behind those statements, though, so it's possible that the sentences are just not well-written and the actual source supports mentioning those events in this particular article. If someone else can follow up on this, I would be really grateful. InformationToKnowledge ( talk) 14:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Late Glacial redirects to this page, and I don't think it should. I have seen it used for the entire Weichselian, that is the whole period from the end of the Eemian until the end of the Pleistocene. This interstadial is only a short fraction of that age. 2601:441:4900:A6E0:1C71:391E:AA64:8B75 ( talk) 15:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
All of the (handful) of recent papers that use both terms say that they are completely equivalent (Last Interglacial Interstadial and BøllingâAllerød Interstadial anyway) e.g. [1], [2] [3], therefore these two articles are duplicates. If there are actual (rather than percieved) discrepancies between usage the two terms in current literature then they can just be discussed in the text rather than warranting having two articles. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 21:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi! I am asking experts on this topic to take part in this discussion: /info/en/?search=Talk:Climate_change#Resolving_the_issue_of_rapid_rates_of_change Efbrazil ( talk) 17:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Even after the recent merge, we still have Bølling oscillation and Allerød oscillation, both of which are barely referenced stubs. Do we need a formal proposal & discussion to merge those as well, or can it just be done immediately? InformationToKnowledge ( talk) 13:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
So, I had resolved what was by far the most important issue with this article - the persistent implication that this period had represented rapid and worldwide warming, as opposed to substantial Northern Hemisphere warming, Southern Hemisphere cooling, and little net change globally - which is what the WP:RS, now cited within the article, actually say.
However, there is still a significant issue with either completely unreferenced paragraphs (usually commented out by now), or with large blocks of text that appear to be based on a single source (i.e. the entirety of the "Siberian Plain" and "North America"). Would the other editors who have taken part in the merge discussion be interested in addressing this issue?
Additionally, I also commented out some paragraphs which appear to reference events that have taken place outside of this period. I.e. anything which says "after the Last Glacial Maximum" should probably be in the Oldest Dryas article, since that was the actual period which directly followed LGM. Likewise, "centuries after B-A" (used in another paragraph) likely belongs in Younger Dryas. I have not checked the references behind those statements, though, so it's possible that the sentences are just not well-written and the actual source supports mentioning those events in this particular article. If someone else can follow up on this, I would be really grateful. InformationToKnowledge ( talk) 14:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)