The method of IPCC AR citation presented on this page supplants an earlier attempt which can be considered as mostly failed, but provided valuable lessons. A key lesson is the need to minimize editorial "assembly" of the elements of a template. Another important lesson is the impracticality of the standard "author(s)+date" method of identifying specific sources (instances have been found where as many as five authors are insufficient to distinguish IPCC chapters); experience shows the AR/WG/Ch/year method to be more meaningful and easier to use.
Specific aspects of the method presented here have been developed in the context of the Global warming article during 2019; relevant discussions are archived there. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Please comment here on any errors or problems encountered with the IPCC citations. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Femkemilene: I see your url update here; thanks for bringing it to my attention. One of the reasons for having canonical citations and standardized formatting is to facilitate verification and updating, and I am hoping that as things get a little more developed we can be more proactive on that. (And, what a coincidence, having gotten the Special Reports more or less up to date I have been planning to check AR4 and AR5.) Another reason for this multi-level approach to citation (per the diagram) is to minimize redundancy, so that when something (like a URL, or, drat, a file name) changes only one edit is required (per article) to fix it. ( Effects of global warming being a contra-example.)
I'm going to be a bit busy in the coming week so there will be a bit of delay getting on with this. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 00:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
[The following arises from a discussion Femke and I are having at Talk:Effects of global warming#Citations, and particularly:]
[...] And yes, the link to the normal website works equally fast as the mirror. Wouldn't you agree that the official website is more likely to be stable than the mirror? I really don't understand why you prefer the archived version of the AR4 website anyway (recent addition in 'global warming')... Femke Nijsse ( talk) 08:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi there! I'm attempting to reference chapters from the fourth National Climate Assessment ( this page, to be specific), and I am finding challenges similar to those described here. Would a similar setup be suggested for that set of recommendations? If so, would a more experienced contributor be willing to help set this up? I'm afraid the discussion on this page is somewhat over my head. Thanks! Jlevi ( talk) 17:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
The method of IPCC AR citation presented on this page supplants an earlier attempt which can be considered as mostly failed, but provided valuable lessons. A key lesson is the need to minimize editorial "assembly" of the elements of a template. Another important lesson is the impracticality of the standard "author(s)+date" method of identifying specific sources (instances have been found where as many as five authors are insufficient to distinguish IPCC chapters); experience shows the AR/WG/Ch/year method to be more meaningful and easier to use.
Specific aspects of the method presented here have been developed in the context of the Global warming article during 2019; relevant discussions are archived there. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Please comment here on any errors or problems encountered with the IPCC citations. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Femkemilene: I see your url update here; thanks for bringing it to my attention. One of the reasons for having canonical citations and standardized formatting is to facilitate verification and updating, and I am hoping that as things get a little more developed we can be more proactive on that. (And, what a coincidence, having gotten the Special Reports more or less up to date I have been planning to check AR4 and AR5.) Another reason for this multi-level approach to citation (per the diagram) is to minimize redundancy, so that when something (like a URL, or, drat, a file name) changes only one edit is required (per article) to fix it. ( Effects of global warming being a contra-example.)
I'm going to be a bit busy in the coming week so there will be a bit of delay getting on with this. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 00:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
[The following arises from a discussion Femke and I are having at Talk:Effects of global warming#Citations, and particularly:]
[...] And yes, the link to the normal website works equally fast as the mirror. Wouldn't you agree that the official website is more likely to be stable than the mirror? I really don't understand why you prefer the archived version of the AR4 website anyway (recent addition in 'global warming')... Femke Nijsse ( talk) 08:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi there! I'm attempting to reference chapters from the fourth National Climate Assessment ( this page, to be specific), and I am finding challenges similar to those described here. Would a similar setup be suggested for that set of recommendations? If so, would a more experienced contributor be willing to help set this up? I'm afraid the discussion on this page is somewhat over my head. Thanks! Jlevi ( talk) 17:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)