The proposed WikiProject was created, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Climate change . Please post any further comments/questions within the project, including on its talk page.
We propose to convert the inactive Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force to a full WikiProject. The project will focus on all aspects of climate change and provide active editors a place to share expertise in this topic, coordinate tasks, and share ideas about how to clearly and neutrally communicate.
The project's scope includes the scope of the former Climate Change Task Force and to the extent not already covered by the task force:
This project proposal page is a work in progress. Please excuse the mess while we get things organised!
Also, specify whether or not you would join the project.
# User:NewsAndEventsGuy .... (A) Why not just start using the
existing inactive task force (existing under the ENVIRONMENT project umbrella)? I don't know much about projects but the skim read says projects have "administrative overhead" and Project Environment already has that covered. Please see
Converting_existing_task_forces_to_projects. So why try to be a stand-alone thing? UPDATE - being discussed on the talk page (I changed to "yes", as explained at talk)
Can we change the name of the Climate Change article to Climate Crisis of Climate Emergency? See Guardian spurs media outlets to consider stronger climate language Notagainst ( talk) 10:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Hi, I realise this is coming kinda late, but I was wondering about what name is best for the wikiproject. I know its longer, but given the (still) confusing situation with the topic of our Climate Change article, I was wondering whether Anthropogenic Climate Change might be better. Hmm, it is a bit awkward... Maybe Climate Change is not that bad after all :/ . Or Man-made/human climate change ? I dunno now.. Regards Sean Heron ( talk) 13:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Hi Sean and thanks for the support I considered adding "anthropogenic" to the name - I think the length isn't much of an issue - but I'm certain we will lose some people with throwing that into the mix. Also, the word is somewhat obscure. "Man-made" is less confusing, but just as likely to drive some potential supporters away. I've spent much of the last few years engaging directly with people on all parts of the spectrum of belief, from outright, categorical denial to almost rabid activism. A lot of people accept the fact that the planet's climate is changing but absolutely refuse to accept that man could possibly have such a drastic effect on it. Takes all kinds to make a world, I guess. And another thing, I'm reluctant to start narrowing the focus too much. While some people might debate the causes of the changes we're seeing, there's no doubt for anyone who is reasonably open-minded that things are changing. And I think it's now less about blamestorming and more about finding solutions and common ground as a basis for working together to resolve the situation. The wider our remit while still being on point for what's happening in the world, the more room for people of different persuasions to come together under a single common goal and work towards finding that common ground. And sharing the information in order to inform the people who are unsure. Does that make sense?
Cadar ( talk) 13:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC) reply
How easy is it to convert the assessments of the previous task force to the new Wikiproject? If this is quite difficult, it might be wiser to just use our current momentum for that task force instead of doing loads of admin only to promote this to a Wikiproject. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 05:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC) reply
On a related note, does anyone actually DO anything with importance assessments? I've been around a long time. I never ever ever use them and usually just ignore the template as wasted real estate on my screen. Editors will quickly figure out what's important. Knowledgeable readers already know. Newbie readers are really unlikely to ever see any of our tools based on assessment, so those tools don't reach them. Unless I'm missing something, import assessments appeal to editors doing the assessments but don't contribute very much. But that's just me. FYI I have asked for project space experts to share their wisdom here, as to how important "importance" is, and mechanically how we would go about converting. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 11:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply
I think it would be lovely if we can make sure that all high and top importance article within our scope are up to date and at least assessed C on quality scale. Especially articles about solutions (renewable energy, cool ways of doing agriculture and so forth) are often out of date but widely read. I believe this 'misinformation' might decrease support for these solutions.
We also have a legacy of very long articles that are therefore difficult to maintain: mitigation of climate change was one of them iirc. We need to condense those before we can update them.
In addition, it would be nice if we can make more of our work visible to a wider public: we can try to submit more DYKs for new articles and for newly promoted good articles. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 14:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC) reply
I think it really helps if the WikiProject name matches the lead article name; in this case I think the
Global warming article more closely matches the main scope of this proposal, and so would suggest
Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Global Warming as the project's title. The
Climate change article is broader, discussing changes to the climate throughout Earth's history. Thoughts?
UnitedStatesian (
talk) 15:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
reply
The proposed WikiProject was created, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Climate change . Please post any further comments/questions within the project, including on its talk page.
We propose to convert the inactive Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force to a full WikiProject. The project will focus on all aspects of climate change and provide active editors a place to share expertise in this topic, coordinate tasks, and share ideas about how to clearly and neutrally communicate.
The project's scope includes the scope of the former Climate Change Task Force and to the extent not already covered by the task force:
This project proposal page is a work in progress. Please excuse the mess while we get things organised!
Also, specify whether or not you would join the project.
# User:NewsAndEventsGuy .... (A) Why not just start using the
existing inactive task force (existing under the ENVIRONMENT project umbrella)? I don't know much about projects but the skim read says projects have "administrative overhead" and Project Environment already has that covered. Please see
Converting_existing_task_forces_to_projects. So why try to be a stand-alone thing? UPDATE - being discussed on the talk page (I changed to "yes", as explained at talk)
Can we change the name of the Climate Change article to Climate Crisis of Climate Emergency? See Guardian spurs media outlets to consider stronger climate language Notagainst ( talk) 10:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Hi, I realise this is coming kinda late, but I was wondering about what name is best for the wikiproject. I know its longer, but given the (still) confusing situation with the topic of our Climate Change article, I was wondering whether Anthropogenic Climate Change might be better. Hmm, it is a bit awkward... Maybe Climate Change is not that bad after all :/ . Or Man-made/human climate change ? I dunno now.. Regards Sean Heron ( talk) 13:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Hi Sean and thanks for the support I considered adding "anthropogenic" to the name - I think the length isn't much of an issue - but I'm certain we will lose some people with throwing that into the mix. Also, the word is somewhat obscure. "Man-made" is less confusing, but just as likely to drive some potential supporters away. I've spent much of the last few years engaging directly with people on all parts of the spectrum of belief, from outright, categorical denial to almost rabid activism. A lot of people accept the fact that the planet's climate is changing but absolutely refuse to accept that man could possibly have such a drastic effect on it. Takes all kinds to make a world, I guess. And another thing, I'm reluctant to start narrowing the focus too much. While some people might debate the causes of the changes we're seeing, there's no doubt for anyone who is reasonably open-minded that things are changing. And I think it's now less about blamestorming and more about finding solutions and common ground as a basis for working together to resolve the situation. The wider our remit while still being on point for what's happening in the world, the more room for people of different persuasions to come together under a single common goal and work towards finding that common ground. And sharing the information in order to inform the people who are unsure. Does that make sense?
Cadar ( talk) 13:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC) reply
How easy is it to convert the assessments of the previous task force to the new Wikiproject? If this is quite difficult, it might be wiser to just use our current momentum for that task force instead of doing loads of admin only to promote this to a Wikiproject. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 05:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC) reply
On a related note, does anyone actually DO anything with importance assessments? I've been around a long time. I never ever ever use them and usually just ignore the template as wasted real estate on my screen. Editors will quickly figure out what's important. Knowledgeable readers already know. Newbie readers are really unlikely to ever see any of our tools based on assessment, so those tools don't reach them. Unless I'm missing something, import assessments appeal to editors doing the assessments but don't contribute very much. But that's just me. FYI I have asked for project space experts to share their wisdom here, as to how important "importance" is, and mechanically how we would go about converting. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 11:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply
I think it would be lovely if we can make sure that all high and top importance article within our scope are up to date and at least assessed C on quality scale. Especially articles about solutions (renewable energy, cool ways of doing agriculture and so forth) are often out of date but widely read. I believe this 'misinformation' might decrease support for these solutions.
We also have a legacy of very long articles that are therefore difficult to maintain: mitigation of climate change was one of them iirc. We need to condense those before we can update them.
In addition, it would be nice if we can make more of our work visible to a wider public: we can try to submit more DYKs for new articles and for newly promoted good articles. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 14:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC) reply
I think it really helps if the WikiProject name matches the lead article name; in this case I think the
Global warming article more closely matches the main scope of this proposal, and so would suggest
Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Global Warming as the project's title. The
Climate change article is broader, discussing changes to the climate throughout Earth's history. Thoughts?
UnitedStatesian (
talk) 15:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
reply