Talk:Climate variability and change/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

Requested move 18 October 2019

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 to Climate change (general concept), as proposed, with climate change now redirecting to global warming. Three points:

  1. There is a wide consensus (not unanimous) that there are two meanings of "climate change" - the climate changing in general (i.e. Ice Age, etc.) is one, and the recent climate change accompanying post-industrial global warming is the other. Consensus here is very broad that the second one is in fact primary.
  2. The proposed title for this current article isn't great, according to many people below on both sides. Granted. It's not very WP:NATURAL or WP:CONSISTENT with other article titles. If we assume that the recent global warming is the primary topic for the term "climate change", however, then until a merge is decided on (if it ever is), we do have to put the overall concept article somewhere. Consensus signals the proposed title as the least bad option. (A further move is possible if someone has a better idea.)
  3. For now, consensus is to redirect Climate change to global warming. This is a free country encyclopedia; if someone wants to create a stand-alone article about climate change, that's fine. If someone wants to try to move global warming over to climate change, start up another WP:RM. If someone wants to merge this article with the article at global warming, I guess you can start that discussion, too. (And if you think the redirect should not point to global warming but somewhere else, file it at WP:RFD!) The only thing that consensus has absolutely formed on is that the primary topic of the term "climate change" is, without a doubt, the changes in climate that are currently taking place now. The long-term consequences of this consensus are not for me to decide. All I'm doing is carrying out the consensus as it was developed here. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 05:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


Climate change → Climate change (general concept)This is a small change with broad support among eds who chose to participate in the widely-publicized preliminary discussion. The phrase "Climate change" is ambiguous and can mean the

  • A. The general concept driven by any cause, involving either warming or cooling and happening at any time in earth's history or
  • B. The specific example of climate change humans are witnessing in modern times

Since at least 2004, the content of this article has fallen under meaning (A). The WP:PRIMARYTOPIC most lay readers associate with the phrase falls under meaning (B). This is evidenced by GoogleTests performed by Femkemilene in preliminary discussions (see this talk page and her sandbox). It is also evidenced by the frequent complaints from lay readers who search for "climate change" with an intention of meaning "B", but they arrive here, which has meaning "A". In the past we have often debated sweeping reforms but this proposal only asks to do a baby step. Since hatnotes at global warming and climate change have not eliminated reader confusion we propose to take one more step toward resolving reader confusion by adding disambiguation to this article's title per WP:NCDAB. Reader confusion will be reduced in a small way by (1) the existing hatnotes (2) the addition of "general concept" so the article title is a much more precise match to its contents.

To recap then the proposal is

  • Move this article to "Climate change (general concept) and
  • At least for now, turn "climate change" into a redirect pointing at the new title

Note - We know a lot of editors (myself included) want to point the "climate change" redirect at "global warming" but I am proposing we wait to discuss that as a separate issue after making this baby step change and waiting a month for the dust to settle. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I have removed a housekeeping note addressed to eds who answered before I finished the rationale. All of them have doublechecked and verified (THANK YOU EVERYONE!) so I am removing the ping asking them to do so.
@Closer... FYI this discussion was also advertised at the other top article (Global warming)[1] and at WikiProject Climate Change[2]. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
@CLOSER... Although I can not close this, I've been trying to summarize everyone's view per WP:OTHERSOPINION at [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy/CCRM-Table]]. It isn't a separate discussion or polling place, just my notes about how things stand here. If you find it useful, you are invited to visit the table and its talk page as you make up your own mind. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
@ALL see demo page at User:NewsAndEventsGuy/CC-LinkTest which shows 70% first 50 "what links here" articles are wrong. Femke has pointed out that the ratio used to be 90% but she cleaned up a lot of them already. See also User:Femkemilene/sandbox#FemkeQ1.1 NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree as a co-initiator NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree. Assuming we reach consensus on making this move, after that perhaps we should move Global warming to "Climate change (human-caused)" rather than to "Climate change." When a typical reader wanting information about anthropogenic climate change types in "climate change", it would be helpful if the first two choices that come up are "Climate change (human-caused)" and "Climate change (general concept)." That way the difference between the two articles will be very clear. NightHeron (talk) 12:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC) For now the important thing is to acknowledge that readers searching for "climate change" almost always have in mind anthropogenic climate change, and not the subject of the current article with that title; for that reason the title of Climate change should be replaced by "Climate change (general concept)" to avoid confusion. NightHeron (talk) 01:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree and strong support! - and yes, I agree with the proposed staged approach of baby steps and waiting a bit (a month is a bit long?) in between. That second step will be important, but let's complete the first step first. EMsmile (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong support (as one of the initiators). Looking forward to not having to fix all of those internal links that wrongly point towards this page anymore. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC). I'm okay with doing a two-step process, but would prefer we directly make climate change a redirect to global warming. 14:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Per various thorough preliminary discussions and NAEG's intro description. Suffix "general concept" is needed to properly describe current content of CC article, to distinguish it from the Anthropogenic global warming content that readers seek and sources most commonly intend, which is currently in the GW article. Next, I favor prompt redirect: "CC" --> "GW and CC". —RCraig09 (talk) 14:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC) Supplemented 15:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC) and 16:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree but I think waiting after the move is not a good idea. Please keep momentum going forward by proposing subsequent steps as soon as the move takes place. Efbrazil (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong support, without prejudice to further refinements of the new title if evidence arises that readers are confused by (general concept). A lot of prior discussion and painstaking gathering of evidence has gone into this proposal. We need Climate change to redirect to Global warming and this proposal is the first step. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
    (Copied from my comment above) When people say they are concerned about climate change, or when other people say climate change is a hoax, they are talking about global warming. If I recall, many years ago the media usually called it global warming and shifted to calling it "climate change", but Wikipedia hasn't caught up. I sympathize with how hard it's historically been to get consensus on the naming issue, but it's an ongoing problem for both readers (as described with excellent evidence in the proposal) and for writers who have to justify (and sometimes argue) over and over why they are converting climate change to climate change. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Clayoquot. Bonus points for the subtle point about converting the wikilnks at the end. When I saw what you did there, it was a good laugh. So true! Have you had recent arguments like that? I may compile examples if this thread stays open long enough. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
@CLOSER, back in August William told us his opposition was mostly on basis of a humorous essay, WP:WASTEOFTIME, which is a variation of Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_on_discussion_pages#It's_useful. Since William's opinion here lacks any reasoning much less an attempt to address the reasons for rename above, hopefully the closer just dismisses this not-vote of personal prefereference. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
This proposal explicitly leaves the redirect discussion for another day. There is indeed a lot of support for what you want to see happen (and I am one of the supporters). But in the past trying to do everything all at once has prevented anything from happening at all. That's why we're asking people whether they can support this babystep, and if not, what RS or P&G reasons there may be for opposing it. What do you think of the babystep all by itself? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
I am also okay with climate change becoming a disambiguation page. What I meant was that I do not support this if the end result includes moving global warming also to climate change but with a disambiguation like (human-induced).ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
@Zxcvbnm: Thanks for entertaining future alternatives when it's time. Question Given the sound reasons to support the narrow proposal in the opening post - so long as WP:CONSENSUS on a future question goes your way - do you have any reason to oppose it right now when that future consensus is unknown? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
@NewsAndEventsGuy:Basically, what I mean is, I support this move, but if it leads to global warming being moved anywhere, then I retroactively negate my support for this.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support and make Climate change a primary redirect to Global warming. 2nd choice: grudging support of move as proposed. I understand not wanting to do too much at once, but the proposed move alone clearly has the effect of leaving things in an undesirable half-baked state, where the title has an unnecessary parenthetical disambiguator. Also, I'm supporting this mostly on the grounds that the current title is inappropriate on ptopic grounds. I would also support any other reasonable alternative name such as "Climatic changes", or a merge with Climate system or Climate variability. Colin M (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy has asked me to clarify why I described the parenthetical disambiguator as "unnecessary". What I meant is that it's generally an error to have a name "Foo" redirect to "Foo (disambiguator)". In such cases, the article title should just be "Foo". Per WP:CRITERIA, the title should be "no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects". So if we view this RM in isolation, it's actually a step backward. It only becomes useful in concert with a change to the target of the "Climate change" redirect. NewsAndEventsGuys has said there's a plan to list it at RFD. But what if it fails? Will we have to have another RM to remove the unnecessary disambiguator from "Climate change (general concept)"? Colin M (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for such a speedy and concise explanation, Colin! I disagree with your reasoning, however. There are two ways parenthetical disambiguation may be "useful". (A) For the 'filing system', so the servers can tell one article from another, and (B) To support reader navigation and education. If the proposal passes, for whatever period of time "climate change" redirects to climate change (general concept), readers will find the disambiguator "useful" by helping them understand that this article is about any climate change, from any cause, at any time in Earth's history, and is NOT about the PRIMARYTOPIC of the phrase "climate change" which is now reported at Global warming. It's usefulness may be redundant to lead text and redundant to the hatnotes, but the repeated complaints in the article talk page here and at Talk:Global warming beg for all the "useful" ways we can help readers navigate and understand the scope of each article. I agree leaving the redirect pointing at this new name would not be the best, but however long it remains that way will be more "useful" than the PRIMARYTOPIC mismatch between the status quo title and content. Thanks again for such a fast clear answer!NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

arbitrary break 1

  • Oppose per WP:TITLECHANGES. The case is not even strong that there is something wrong with the current title. The A/B problem can be dealt with by a brief fourth lede paragraph. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe: Thanks for commenting with an RS or P&G reason! There are four paragraphs in the section you cite, so please clarify. I think you are specifically relying on the part that says Consensus among editors determines if there does exist a good reason to change the title and an opinion that (so far at least) you believe there is no "good reason". Is that right? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thanks for your motivated oppose. Is your reading of WP:TITLECHANGE that we shouldn't change the title because it has long be the consensus? Wouldn't you agree that because we've had a almost yearly discussion about the title of this article we actually have a "no consensus status quo", which according to WP:NOTMOVED makes it perfectly valid to find a better name. Do you disagree with the analysis above (summarized in Q1.1 of previous threat) that climate change's WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is current climate change? To reinstate: we see that around 97-99% of all mentions of climate change on Google, Google Books, and Google scholar are about current climate change. We see that 90% of all links TO this article are actually meant to go to an article about current climate change. Do you think that people linking to this article will read even the first line of the article, nevermind the 4th paragraph? Femke Nijsse (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
My position is that no case has been made that anything serious is *wrong* with the current title. I do not agree the “climate change” implies recent current predicted change to the exclusion of the general topic. The little bit of ambiguity A vs B is a reader issue, not an editor issue, and is better addressed by a better lede. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply! I agree with you (if I understand you correctly) that climate change has two definitions, one of which corresponds to the current content. The UNFCCC definition is specific to current climate change. In that sense, there is nothing 'wrong' with the article title. But our guidelines are quite clear that it's not definitions that determine primary topics, but the general use. I've shown, in as many different ways as I could think of, that the phrase climate change is primarily used when talking about current climate change. For you, are there any additional quantifiable metrics I could compile that would convince you that this is the case? Or other types of evidence?
That this is an editor issue, as well as a reader issue, can be seen by reading the history of this page. Search for edit summaries of 'wrong article' or 'wrong place' and you might change your mind on how much confusion our current artificial distinction makes for the ordinary editor. Femke Nijsse (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
“ climate change is primarily used when talking about current climate change” says to me WP:RECENTISM. Climate change is as old as climate. The titles Recent climate change, Current climate changes and Predicted climate change seem to be missing. They are at Global warming, which is the unfortunate mismatching synonym for current climate change. I don’t think the title is a problem, but the lede fails to distinguish the general concept, which belongs at the simple title, with recent climate change. The problem is the lede, not the title. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:59, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
See also, samples of recurring debates about article title and scope in these pages. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe, do you acknowledge the fact Femkemilene has reviewed both lay and professional sources in an effort to determine the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC associated with the term? Do you have a reason to dispute her conclusion, i.e., that the PRIMARYTOPIC for "climate change" is the example of climate change humans are witnessing in the modern age? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
I do. Modern climate change is a subset of Climate change. It is very hard for a subtopic to gain PT over the parent topic. I disagree with her and your conclusion on assigning the PT to the subtopic. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
WP:RECENTISM gives a thought experiment to recognize and combat recentism: the WP:10YEARS. Would you argue that in ten years time, the phrase climate change will become primarily used in the sense of the general definition? I think not. Because I cannot look into the future, I looked in the past and performed the -10YEARS test on Google scholar. The first 50 articles all use climate change in the UNFCCC definition. That climate change is as old as climate doesn't matter here as we have to determine usage and not definitions to determine a primary topic.
You say it is very hard for a specific definition of the term to gain PT over a general definition. Very hard implies that it is possible. What is your threshold? What specific evidence do you require to change your mind? To give an example, Global warming is used in its general definition about 0.1-1.0% of the time (Google Scholar search), whereas its use as human-caused global warming is dominant. Would you argue that global warming should deal with its general definition then as well?
What makes you say it's difficult for a specific definition to gain PT over a more general definition? I'd argue we need might the disambiguation clearer even, as confusion is very possible with two strongly related terms. Many readers that come to climate change might conclude that this is the only informaiton we have about climate change (missing the hatnotes and the 'fourth paragraph'). If the topics were more widely separated, readers would look around more to find the hatnotes and get to the right place.
About extra information in the lede: notice that there was more (flawed) information about current climate change in the lede up to 9 days ago, which I removed because of the fact that it was a bit prescriptive and not correct. This extra focus did not stop the approximately 90% of people wrongly linking to this article (and that 90% is after many of these links are corrected.) Femke Nijsse (talk) 06:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
WP:Recentism? There is an understandable obsession with the last 1000-100 years over the last 100000 years.
I must admit that I have a kneejerk dislike of Climate change (general concept). Failing WP:Natural, I do not see it as even viable. Something else though?
You may get me to change my mind with a point about a need to do something about masses of incorrect links that keep getting made by editors. I was slow to be convinced about this for New York, by User:BD2412, but I was. Is this a similar situation? Should *nothing* be at "Climate change"? This is not your usual interest BD2412, but when it comes to ambiguous titles prone to receiving bad incoming links, I would like to start with your opinion.
Alternatives? The scope of this article is long term, geological time scale, climate change in the Earth's atmosphere, and ground and ocean surfaces. Does "Climate change" not sound enough general and indefinite long term? Maybe "climate variability"? Curiously, the stub Climate variability tell me my pre-conception, "Over the short term, such variation is averaged out and called "internal climate variability". Over the longer term they are called "climate change". I'm not much impressed with the sentence.
"It is very hard for a specific definition of the term to gain PT over a general definition". Yes, it can be done. An example is water, which includes ice, but hen someone says "water" they almost always mean liquid water to the exclusion of ice and vapor. When someone says "climate change", do they exclude the distant past and possible distant future (eg Future of Earth#Climate impact.
"Many readers that come to climate change might conclude that this is the only information we have about climate change". Well yes, I have been aware of this for a long time, that the navigation between similar atmospheric and climate articles is very poor. It is as if they were made in an uncoordinated fashion. Huge overlaps and gaps. Unexpected titles. "Climate change" looks like a general title. "Global warming" looks like a POV title. Hatnotes? Paleoclimatology? You know, Wikipedia's hatnotes are a perverse idiosynchronicity. Editors seem to think they are reasonable, but they are clutter on so many pages, regular readers become blind to them. I had not even seen Paleoclimatology. I think a massive restructure is needed, and this proposed title change will not do, it is just a bulky bandage that adds to the ugliness. Yes, the lede is ugly and has long been. It is a thorny topic. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
I think your response might have to much information for me to digest in one go.
As I've stated before in previous discussion, I don't have a strong preference for climate change (general concept) over other titles. Climate change to most people does not sound general at all. It's what's happening now in communities, it's what elections are fought about, not something from a relatively obscure scientific discipline. In our discussions about the best title for this article, we've always come to the same pain points: naturalness vs precision. Many of the more natural titles we've discussed (climate changes/climatic changes, climate variability and change) we're considered not sufficiently precise. The first two were considered to have the same problem as the current title (albeit to a lesser extent): their primary topics are probably current climate change. Climate variability has a different problem under the precision criterion: it's a different topic with a different definition. ANY change in the climate system that is longer than 'weather' is captured under that umbrella. If we choose this title, we'll have a lot of overlap with the climate system article. According to WP:PARENDIS, Wikipedia's standard disambiguation technique when none of the other solutions lead to an optimal article title.
Yes, most links to this page do exclude distant future and past. Let me link the Excel sheet that Thjarkur so kindly provided of links to this article + a snippet of text around it. In examining the first ten links, we see discussions of recent (last decades) impacts, near future (up to 2100) impacts and mitigation (next few decades) of climate change. (added later) The small percentage that do link correctly regularly specify further (past climate change/climate changes/cyclical climate change, whatever that may be). 12:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Made small 12:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC), because off-topic. I agree that this naming issue is not unique to this article. I've discerned four types of solutions:
They were made in an uncoordinated fashion, but note that consistency in titles is not always feasible. The balance of primariness might be different for each of these articles. I don't like global warming as article title, as it is old-fashioned. But POV? That's a new one to me? What makes you think this? Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe, with the possible exception of WMC, everyone who has commented so far agrees with you that a "massive restructure needs to be done". Did you read the prior discussions I previously called to your attention? see also Femke's Sandbox and especially its related talk page. The problems with "massive" restructure discussions is that you get exactly the same results from stomping hard on a full tube of toothpaste but the latter is a hell of a lot more fun. Everyone (except maybe WMC) wants to do the massive restructure. We've been doing preliminary discussions for months (or years in my case). As a practical bit of wikireality it is only gonna happen in small bites. This is the first small bite. In keeping with KISS principle let's try to deal with this little baby step and accept that the rest of the ball of wax is a good faith discussion but in THIS thread its offtopic and premature.
Here is a summary of the discrete issue presented here as I understand it. I am speaking as proposer when I start by saying, The only issue in this thread is whether the article title could be improved with parenthetical disambiguation?' SmokeyJoe, please check this restatement of your views to see if you would change anything?
  • (1) The PRIMARYTOPIC of "climate change" is the material now found at Global warming
  • (2) The scope of the Climate change article is different
  • (3) You believe that the difference described in (2) is nothing more than a "little bit of ambiguity" (quote from above, 23:57 Oct 18)
  • (4) In your mind that "little bit" of ambiguity does not constitute a "good reason" to justify changing the title of this article, as required by WP:TITLECHANGES.
Is that a fair summary?
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
(1) I dislike this talk of PRIMARYTOPIC of “climate change” because I don’t think a good definition is commonly accepted.
(2) different to what?? Global warming? Global warming is a subset of climate change. The titles, and the structure of content on these topics is awkward.
(3) “little bit” may be understated, but I think it was being overstated. Can we talk instead about mislinking by editors?
(4) I think the proposed new title is an insufficient fiddle, and of negative net benefit. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe: re: "not your usual interest", I have actually written ~28 Wikipedia articles on climate change by state in the U.S. With respect to the phrase itself, historically it has very rarely been used, if at all, to refer to anything other than post-industrial anthropogenic climate change. bd2412 T 16:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
You have too many edits, says the tool! I read Climate change in New York City. This is a poor use of the term “climate change”. There is a strong POV that “climate change” means “climate warming”. While most of us don’t doubt it, it is still POV. I don’t think this term should be used. It is ambiguous, and different people have strong and divergent opinions on what it means. I am strengthening my opinion that this page should be at “climatology”, overtly scientific and extremely broad is scope. Should “global warming” be at “climate change”? “Global warming” is a POV assertion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe, is the prior comment talking about this article and this rename proposal? If so, please restate... you lost me when you said "this term" after mentioning at least two terms and I'm confused.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
This article = “Climate change”. This rename proposal is for “Climate change (general concept)”. The “term” is “climate change”. To me, it means the general concept. For others, it is a euphemism for “global warming”. I don’t think the rename proposal makes anything much better. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
SJ: You're not basing your assertions about POV on any sources. As the claims you're making is pretty strong (euphemism.. ), remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Also remember from WP:TITLECHANGES: the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense. You state: While most of us don’t doubt it, it is still POV -> We have clear policy on Wikipedia how to deal with Wikipedia:Fringe theories. The most important tenet is that we describe them as fringe theories, instead of giving them undue weight within the articles, never mind within the article titles. I reject your assertion that climate change is POV, but do note that even if it were: we'd still have to follow sources per WP:POVNAME.
It's great that for you climate change means the general concept. But as we've shown in as many ways possible, that's quite unique. Take your example of Climate change in New York City. Even if, reading the word climate change you are thinking of the technical (general) definition instead of current climate change, the fact that we're talking about New York, a city that's only been around for a few centuries, completely disambiguates which climate change we're talking about. Looking at the high percentage of wrong internal links here (this page was even linked wrongly on the front page in 'In the news'!), don't you think we should disambiguate in some kind of form? Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree that "climate change" is an euphemism for "global warming", and I likewise have doubts about this proposed move. (See my comment further below.) While Femke (below) calls "euphemism" "pretty strong", and even "extraordinary", that is rather overreaching. There are sources, but should we turn this RfC into a debate on "global warming"? I can see such a debate as being relevant, and even needed, but if so then it further shows that the basis of this discussion is incomplete. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Let's stay on topic. We're not asking (yet) for a redirect. We're discussion what article title should contain the information about the technical general definition of climate change. Later a discussion can (and will) be held about redirects (possible slightly POV as allowed per WP:RNEUTRAL), and whether the title of global warming needs updating. That discussion is very important and might need a RfC. Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
That's right. You don't want to discuss here your eventual goal of renaming Global warming. Yet it is relevant to this discussion, because renaming this article, then pointing "climate change" to Global warming, sets the stage for a supposedly "more appropriate" title. That is a direct consequence of the action proposed here, and thus warrants discussion here. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you don't like my opposition, but I *Oppose* per Wikipedia:Article_titles#Disambiguation aka WP:NATURAL, and per WP:TITLECHANGES. The proposed is a clunky parenthetical and is not good enough. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for summary. I'm still welcoming alternatives. We've not been able to find a natural one that is also precise. Problem is big enough that incremental steps can be a huge improvement. Femke Nijsse (talk) 06:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe: Early in this thread (timestamp 07:22, 19 Oct) you said You may get me to change my mind with a point about a need to do something about masses of incorrect links that keep getting made by editors. and you asked BD2412 to comment on this specifically. I look forward to future related debates about merging content and retargeting redirects and even whether we should rename global warming. But none of that has the slightest bearing on the fact the title "climate change" as used on this (general concept) article does not match the PRIMARYTOPIC. Consider...
70% of first 50 WhatLinksHere articles link cc when they really mean Global warming

From First 50 article hits hiding redirects

There is no link in the text... I'm guessing this article was returned in the list of hits due to a link in the portals or categories etc
A number of causes are believed to be involved, including [[habitat destruction]] and modification, [[over-exploitation]], pollution, [[introduced species]], [[climate change]]...
...development of former farm lands, rising transportation costs, [[climate change]], growing consumer demand in China and India, and [[population growth]]...
...a satirist spoke up at an event for [[Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez]], claiming that a solution to the [[Climate change|climate crisis]] was "we need to eat the babies"...
...Various models of [[climate change]] have been projected into the 22nd century for the Alps...
The main issues are [[nutrient pollution|excessive nutrients]], adapting to increased (and increasing) levels of precipitation brought on by [[climate change]], and securing the water supply.
Hooray, correctly used!
Hooray, correctly used!
This has been attributed to [[climate change]]—the camouflage value of its lighter coat decreases with less snow cover.
She has expressed a variety of views on scientific issues such as [[climate change]]...
...in infrastructure, health care services, financial and public administration systems, helping nations prepare for the impact of [[climate change]] or...
Hooray, correctly used!
Bolivia is especially vulnerable to the negative consequences of [[climate change]].
...by 2050 the cycle of mild drought is likely to become shorter —18 months instead of two years—due to [[climate change]].
  • Botany (Note to self, if I come back to this ponder NPOV)
Among the important botanical questions of the 21st century are the role of plants as primary producers in the global cycling of life's basic ingredients: energy, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and water, and ways that our plant stewardship can help address the global environmental issues of [[resource management]], [[Conservation (ethic)|conservation]], [[food security|human food security]], [[introduced species|biologically invasive organisms]], [[carbon sequestration]], [[climate change]], and [[sustainability]].
Hooray, used correctly!
There has been a recent increase in interactions between brown bears and [[polar bear]]s (''Ursus maritimus''), theorized to be caused by [[climate change]].
Hooray, used correctly!
Hooray, used correctly! (though nuclear winter would be a better link)
Global [[climate change]] and the warming of the polar region will likely cause significant changes to the environment...
Obama has since praised Trudeau's efforts to prioritize the reduction of [[climate change]], calling it "extraordinarily helpful" to establish a [[Paris Agreement|worldwide consensus]] on addressing the issue * * * * Obama complimented Trudeau's [[2015 Canadian federal election|2015 election campaign]] for its "message of hope and change" and "positive and optimistic vision". Obama and Trudeau also held "productive" discussions on [[climate change]] and relations between the two countries
The human influence on [[climate change]] is thought to contribute to an accelerated trend in [[sea level rise]] which threatens coastal [[habitat]]s. * * * Fishing has declined due to [[Environmental effects of fishing|habitat degradation]], [[overfishing]], [[trawling]], [[bycatch]] and [[climate change]].
Networks have become especially prevalent in the arena of [[environmentalism]] and specifically [[climate change]] following the adoption of [[Agenda 21]]
Hooray, used correctly!
The strategy sees nuclear energy as a non-carbon source of energy to be used during a slow transition to renewables in order to minimize the use of carbon-emitting [[fossil fuel]]s that cause [[climate change]].
Liquid carbon dioxide (industry nomenclature R744 or R-744) was used as a refrigerant prior to the discovery of [[Dichlorodifluoromethane|R-12]] and may enjoy a renaissance due to the fact that [[R134a]] contributes to [[climate change]] more than {{CO2}} does.
However, [[ocean acidification]] by invading anthropogenic CO<sub>2</sub> may affect the biological pump by negatively impacting [[calcium carbonate|calcifying]] organisms such as [[coccolithophore]]s, [[foraminiferans]] and [[pteropod]]s. [[climate change]] may also affect the biological pump....
Coal industry [[Environmental impact of the coal industry|damages the environment]], including by [[climate change]] as it is the largest [[wikt:anthropogenic|anthropogenic]] source of [[carbon dioxide]]...
Hooray, correctly used!
Hooray, correctly used!
Substantial problems remain, such as [[climate change]], [[nuclear proliferation]], and the specter of [[nuclear terrorism]].
[[climate change]] influences the major wind systems and ocean currents, which also lead to cetacean strandings. Researchers studying strandings on the Tasmanian coast from 1920–2002 found that greater strandings occurred at certain time intervals.
[[Water]] is becoming a scarce resource in Djibouti due to [[climate change]], which leads to different rainfall patterns as well as to inefficient methods of distribution within the country.
==Environmental effects==
===Atmospheric===
{{see|Deforestation and climate change}}
Hooray, used correctly!
Hooray, used correctly!
Hooray, used correctly!
Mitigating [[climate change]] is one of the top priorities of EU environmental policy.
The environmental impacts of [[human impact on the environment|anthropogenic]] actions are becoming more apparent. Problems for all ecosystems include: [[Pollution|environmental pollution]], [[climate change]] and [[biodiversity loss]].
Hooray, used correctly!
This means that pre-emptive regulation takes place if there is a credible hazard to the environment or human health: for example on tackling [[climate change]] ...
EU legislation is ruled in Article 249 Treaty for the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Topics for common EU legislation are [[climate change]] [[Air pollution]]...
Environmentalists often clash with others, particularly "corporate interests," over issues of the management of [[natural resources]], like in the case of the [[Earth's atmosphere|atmosphere]] as a "carbon dump", the focus of [[climate change]], and [[global warming]] controversy.
There is no consensus on if [[climate change]] will have any influence on the occurrence, strength or duration of El Niño events, as research supports El Niño events becoming stronger, longer, shorter and weaker.
They address issues such as [[sustainability]], [[biological diversity]], [[climate change]], [[nutritional economics]], [[population growth]], [[water supply]], and [[Food security|access to food]]. * * * Some experts have said that speculation has merely aggravated other factors, such as [[climate change]], competition with [[bio-fuels]] and overall rising demand. * * *
Hooray, used correctly!
Dyson believes [[global warming]] is caused by increased [[carbon dioxide]] through burning [[fossil fuel]]s, but is skeptical about the [[Scientific modelling|simulation models]] used to predict [[climate change]], arguing that political efforts to reduce causes of climate change distract from other global problems that should take priority.
...Overfishing, [[climate change]], land and water [[pollution]].
The aim of the meeting was to "strengthen cooperation" between Micronesia and Cuba, notably on addressing the impact of [[climate change]]
Hooray, used correctly!
We could probably find things that are "wrong" with various samples of the excerpted article text, and one might even want to argue whether I correctly classified each sample.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts after reviewing all that, and in the meantime... THANK YOU for your work with Femkemilene critiquing the various articles, and THANK YOU to Femkemilene for extensive work revamping them based on your input! There is much still to do, of course, and we need your help to get the very top-most structure sorted out. So what do you think? Is this similar to the other times you encountered an incoming link problem?
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Note that that 70% is lower than what I found in the first 200 (90%). This is partially because in the past I looked at this and started correcting links from the first 50.. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Sounds like your corrections increased the concentration of "Hooray, Femke was here!" in the first 50. Thank you for your service, again! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

arbitrary break 2

  • Currently a conditional oppose. I am somewhat of the view of ZXCVBNM (aside from the redirect to GW), but am feeling that any "counting of votes" here might overlook his "conditional", so I take this position to counter the effect of overlooking his conditional. While I agree that "climate change" needs to be handled better, the way this article has been trimmed makes it a less suitable destination. On the otherhand, I find a redirection to Global warming – which is the ulitmate intent here – equally unsatisfactory. I see CC and GW as distinctly separable topics, and that GW could be (and likely should be) trimmed in the same manner as this article was. Which won't happen if that article has to carry the traffic for "climate change". I suspect that most readers are more interested in the what of climate change than the why, which would make Effects of global warming a more suitable destination. Which has not been seriously discussed on this page. I am also not (yet?) satisfied that there has been sufficient discussion on this page to warrant rejection of a disambiguation page. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
I have explained (through out) my concern that various alternatives have not been fully considered (on this page, and prior to this proposal), and my concern that the ultimate intent here is to diminish and shuffle off "Global warming", and how my concerns might be relieved. Having not been satisfied in any of these respects, I am now striking the "conditional" of my "oppose". While I expect this proposal will carry, the consensus is thin enough that I caution against making claims based on "that was the consensus". ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
JJ, Those are all extraneous concerns to matching this content to this title. Do you agree the current content is about the general concept of climate change, due to any cause, whether warming or cooling or manifesting in some other way, at any time in earth's history? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't quite understand the reasoning + oppose how your reasoning leads to an oppose. If you want climate change to be a disambiguation page, then this page needs a disambiguated title, leading to a support for the proposal, right? We're doing this in babysteps, solving one problem at a time. The current question is: what should the title be of the page discussion the general & technical definition of climate change. I very much welcome further discussion in the next steps. Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2019 (UTC) I asked for clarification of off-topic comments on JJ's user page for those interested. 07:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
True, NAEG. I'm seeing from a few people, comments that are not related to the narrow topic at hand: renaming, and what to do with "CC" if it is renamed. Next step: Assuming this article is renamed, the tangential discussions don't seem to have recognized that article names are based mainly on RS and common usage of the term as a whole, not literal interpretation of its component words. (GW and CC are used interchangeably, even if distinct literally.) —RCraig09 (talk) 22:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
I know this is not a "vote" just based on number of people but I worry that we have become stuck in exactly the same situation as previously: Some of us want to make a significant change and improvement (including myself), others want to keep the status quo. We debate and debate with those "status quo people" even though they are few and are being unconstructive (mostly) (example: "oppose - pointless fiddling" by User:William M. Connolley) and in the end we all get tired, give up and the status quo never get changed just because of a few people who are blocking things. Maybe they could agree to disagree and we move on, based on this very detailed, well-researched and well-planned proposal for change. Why should the opinion of the few "status quo" people carry more weight than the opinions of the others, especially if the status quo people seem unwillining to consider compromise options. EMsmile (talk) 02:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Please be more careful how you characterize matters here. It is unhelpful to describe one "side" here as favoring needed change, and the other side as not. (E.g., I favor some kind of change, but I reject certain kinds of change.) I particularly reject your view that "the opinion of the few "status quo" people carry more weight than the opinions of the others". I think it is more like the few people who are orchestrating this move don't quite have consensus, and that the persistent log-jam is because some key issues have not been satisfactorily resolved. As to willingness to consider compromise options: isn't that just what SmokeyJoe did? (See #Merge alternative(s), immediately below.) Or do you consider that an instance of "blocking things"? (Would you consider that alternative?) Of course, it is off-topic for this discussion, which is asking for approval (or not) of a very specific action. That such an option was not previously considered (on this page) shows that the current proposal is not yet mature. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Merging was extensively discussed in the last big preliminary discussion before we launched this proposal, and since it hasn't been archived I am mystified why JJ claims it wasn't discussed on this page yet. (See the long thread Talk:Climate_change#Renaming_this_article_to_solve_confusion). I was the chief advocate of the merge idea and I agreed to put merging on the back burner. It isn't dead, it's just premature. The reasons for merging are distinct from the reasons for tweaking the title. Reasons for merging include reducing reader confusion. Although I want to merge, I admit there is value in trying out a better title to see if that alone reduces reader confusion. If not, the case for merging increases. There's no rule that says we HAVE to discuss these other things before turning "climate change" into a simple redirect. Later on we can merge this text if that makes sense and/or turn the "climate change" redirect into a diambig page if that makes sense and/or give it a new target. There is no requirement we even discuss those tangents now. The only thing we have to decide right now is whether the current title would better match the current text if we change Climate change to Climate change (general concept). Let's stay focused. JJ, you've had much to say about tangential issues. What do you think about the narrow specific questions presented here? Is the PRIMARYTOPIC of "climate change" the content now found at Global warming? If yes, would there be at least a little improvement if we make the title more precisely match the contents by addding "general concept" to the title? Thanks for addressing these key questions. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Alternately, we could make the content "more precisely match" the title, for both this article and GW.
Likely your mystification arises from chasing the wrong proposition. I was referring te SmokeyJoe's specific "compromise option" to consider merging this article to Climatology. As far as I see that option – distinct from the discussion of other merge possibilities – has not been discussed here. For sure, there is no rule or requirement for any such discussions. But what you reject as "tangents" is my key concern here, and not addressing that leaves me opposed to this proposal. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
@JJ: In the section "Merge alternative(s)", there is ample discussion of SJ's proposed merge to "Climatology" (e.g., my discussion). Maybe when you said it "has not been discussed here" you meant something else, but in ten years of editing I've never seen more willingness to fairly and openly discuss options, than on this and related Talk Pages. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
My comment, that the Climatology option "was not previously considered (on this page) shows that the current proposal is not yet mature", was posted at 00:14, 22 Oct. Your "discussion" (per your diff) is a single sentence, posted at 21:55 22 Oct., after my comment. The willingness to discuss options – prior to opening the RfC – did not extend to this option, and is further constrained by restricting this discussion to a narrow focus. I think my point stands: this proposal was not mature. (Which incidentally explains why discussion has been so arduous.) ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
While I disagree with your assessment that the proposal was not mature, shall we go back to the content? All of your points have been addressed (as I've ignored NEAG's wish to discuss one thing at a time, sorry NEAG). It would help if you (A) could hat your redirect proposal that you don't seem to support yourself anymore. (B) acknowledge the fact that renaming is necessary if you want to make climate change point towards a redirection page sec? (C) Comment on my analysis of books that a merge into climatology would almost necessarily means deletion of the majority of this article's scope. I see a merge into climatology as something akin to a WP:AfD. As such, it's not surprising it didn't come up in our months-long discussions, nor on this page's extensive discussion before the requested move. Femke Nijsse (talk) 00:01, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
So we disagree on whether this proposal was immature, though by now that is probably moot. On whether all of my points have been "addressed" (beyond having a few words tossed at them), a prime example is RC's claim of "ample discussion" (immediately above), consisting of a single sentence made after I raised the point. Being "addressed" in this manner in no way changes the fact that no such discussion preceded this proposal, nor alleviates my concern that reasonable alternatives have not been considered. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
@J. Johnson: please recall that your bolded NotVote says "conditional oppose". Question-1 What is the condition? Question-2 For each possibility under the condition, would you support or oppose the narrow proposal described in the opening post?
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
As I have said through out, I am not pleased with the inadequate consideration of a number of alternatives prior to pressing for an up-or-down vote on this particular alternative. Nor am I pleased with the refusal to discuss how this "baby-step" takes us into a stronger current of ulterior purpose (detailed below) of diminishing "global warming". A particular concern is that any result here is subsequently construed to apply to issues currently rejected as tangential. I would be more willing to accept this proposal if I was reassured that "global warming" is retained as an article. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Let me assure you that I'm quite content with the article's content of global warming and that I have no plan at all to make it broader than it currently is. I cannot however guarantee the outcome of any future debate and debate will have to be held on its own merits. Femke Nijsse (talk) 22:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
You are being coy. I am not concerned so much about the content, but the title. And in a section well below (at 17:29, 25 Oct) you state: "I support a future rename to global warming and climate change." I am NOT reassured. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • To clarify my statement above, I support changing the status quo in such a way that the title, climate change, primarily discusses the term as primarily used in sources, that being post-industrial anthropogenic change to the climate. Historically, the phrase has only rarely and incidentally been used to describe any other kind of change to climate. bd2412 T 19:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Commment for the closer. While the proposal made here is specifically to 1) rename (move) this article to "Climate change (general concept)", AND then 2) redirect "climate change" back to this article under its new name, yet some of the support votes (currently ZXCVBNM and Colin M) are conditional on a redirect to Global warming. That is not what has been proposed. Whether that should be accepted as a reasonable alternative is questionable in that the proposers have insisted on a narrow focus for this discussion, and removed two sub-threads (now following) that proposed similar alternatives. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Striking my comment, given the clarification that preference for another target of the redirect did not preclude approval of the proposed target. (That isn't my understanding of "conditional", but there we are.) ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Further comment: the two alternatives posted below have met with so much opposition that I cannot imagine either getting consensus. Both of the proposals are furthermore made easier if we first rename, so that we can sort out all the faulty internal links. One of the suggestions has led to massive improvements in this article and in climatology, so they were definitely not wasted time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Femkemilene (talk • contribs)
This is not an accurate characterisation of my !vote. My first choice is to rename and make the base name a primary redirect. However, I support the move as proposed (with the base name redirecting to the new, disambiguated title) as a second choice, which I consider still preferable to the status quo. Colin M (talk) 22:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
@Zxcvbnm: now also clarified that this was not their position precisely. They are also okay with redirecting to a disamb page, the only other redirect suggestion with a substantial minority support. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment narrow oppose I don't think "Climate change (general concept)" would solve our readers' confusion. If they are looking for information on the current climate change debate, the proposed title would reasonably lead them to expect that topic to be discussed in more general terms here, not something else. They will find considerable discussion about the current issue in this article which makes things even more confusing. I think the problem we are facing is a reflection of the generally sloppy language that the media uses and the multi-polar nature of the problem. Is the Earth's climate changing? If so, how much of the change is due to human causes? Is the change good or bad? If it's bad can we slow or stop it? What are the best ways to do that? I realize that many feel most of these questions have been answered in the scientific literature, but they are not settled in the public debate, so it is important that our articles address each issue. But these question do not lend themselves to simple titles. I think it is worth having a general article, maybe this one, on Factors affecting Earth's climate and another on the current climate debate, perhaps Global warming. Until we can get some consensus on titles and subject coverage, I would add a paragraph to the intro pointing readers to the Global warming article for the current debate, echoing the hatnote.--agr (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I'm happy you agree with us that the current naming leads to confusion and we should move away from it. It's also good to know the title proposal doesn't work for everybody.
About your suggestion to add an entire paragraph about current warming (now one sentence): my feeling is that this would exacerbate confusion as it increased the discussion about the current warming episode. People might think they've come to the right place after all. (Addition: I've made a different change to the lede to 'fix' your concern, pluralizing climate change. This is a very common way of disambiguating in books about current climate change and about a general discussion of climatic change. 07:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC))
My first reaction regarding your possible title proposal was positive. Upon further reflection however, I think it might fail the precision criterion. (I still think it's way superior than the current title). This article's scope is climatic changes, not climate an sich. One of the most important factors determining climate is Earth's rotation speed. Rotation speed is however not a factor in climate change, as it remains constant. By making the title not explicitly mention change, the scrope shifts towards our climate system article, which also lists factors affecting Earth's climate.
I don't think the media is to blame here that much (and I like blaming the media). As scientists, we have been advocating to call 'modern climate change' climate change in favour of global warming to reflect all of the secondary effects (sea level rise, changes in precipitation, storm tracks and so forth). Femke Nijsse (talk) 06:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I've been asked to reconsider my opposition, and I've changed to a neutral "comment," based on the argument that this is a first step in larger effort. I'm willing to give the editors who are proposing this move the benefit of the doubt. I would still prefer a more descriptive title, such as the one I proposed. As to the precision issue raised by Femke Nijsse, that could be addressed by a short section describing factors that do not change or change very slowly, such as rotation rate. There would be some overlap with climate system (there already is) but the focus would be on the factors that cause change.--agr (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Re Arnold's statement I'm willing to give the editors who are proposing this move the benefit of the doubt......THANK YOU! I'll try to live up to that trust! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for you understanding about the process. Some more response to your title suggestion. I think you're right we can mention Earth's rotation in passing. Two other topics that are (almost?) always discussed in books about climatic changes are (A) changes due to natural variability and (B) consequences of climate change, such as sea level rise. I think we'll have more difficulty putting these two in. A split/merge of the article (splitting out section two), merging the rest in climate system or whatever, might be possible, but the current proposal still holds my preference. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support as a first step in the right direction. FTR I agree Climate change should redirect to Global warming. The dab (General concept) is maybe not the most elegant, but it seems better than the alternatives discussed so far. Maybe something better will be proposed at some point, but for now, it works. The underlying A/B problem needs to be cleaned up, and this is, as advertised, sort of a first baby step towards doing that. With thanks for the many editors who've been working on this. – Levivich 02:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: "Climate change" and "global warming" are synonymous in common parlance, and a reader looking for the former would expect to find content on the latter. Whatever results from the vote, we must treat the ongoing crisis as "first line information", and general theory and historical events as "second line". François Robere (talk) 14:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree that its very likely readers are most interested in modern climate change. Do you think that the current proposal is a step in the right direction to get this 'first line information' in such a location that readers can easily find it? Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
As an interim step? Yes. Eventually the following would be preferable:
  1. Rename Climate change -> Climate change (climatology)
  2. Redirect Climate change ~> Global warming
  3. Insert Global warming[ hatnote( "Did you mean Climate change (climatology)?" ) ]
François Robere (talk) 21:31, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification! I don't think climate change (climatology) completely disambiguates it, as (A) many people will not really really know what climatology is and (B) if they did, the PRIMARYTOPIC (UNFCCC) definition of climate change (only human-caused) is also a definition used a lot within climatology. Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello @François_Robere. Thank you for bringing your thoughts. Further to Femke's comment: In a section below, there is (in my opinion) a reasoned consensus against SmokeyJoe's proposed merge to "Climatology". The Requested Move is: "CC" --> "CC (general concept)", and a solid "Support" or "Oppose" indication here (not merely a "Comment") would help move the present process forward. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Conditional support: Discussion should proceed on renaming, redirecting and adding a "hatnote" - see my previous comment, as well as comments by ZXCVBNM, Colin M and JJ. François Robere (talk) 12:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
I would prefer "Climate change (theory and history)" or "Climate change (climatological concept)", but both are more complicated. François Robere (talk) 12:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
@François Robere: I apologize, I don't understand. Based on your prior comment (21:35 Oct 25) I think you believe the original proposal, taken all by itself, would make at least an incremental improvement. You said, {{tq|"As an interim step? Yes."} If that's still true please explain what "conditional" means. Question-1 What is the condition? Question-2 For each possibility under the condition, would you support or oppose the narrow proposal described in the opening post? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
You are correct. Accept this proposal as a first step, then continue the discussion - preferably with an eye to renaming, redirecting and adding a "hatnote" to the articles as explained above. Together these four steps should bring clarity to the topic area, however if other proposals are made that achieve the same result I would support them too. François Robere (talk) 15:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for such a fast reply. Per WP:OTHERSOPINION I have updated your entry in my personal notes. If there's anything you want me to change, please call to my attention either here or at the table's talk page in my userspace. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Firstly the proposed name is confusing to users and readers alike. The general concept of what exactly? See WP:PRECISION && WP:ATDAB. Secondly, the article can adequately explain these differences in the lead, much the same as many other Wiki articles which do the very same thing as with concepts which have multiple meanings or understandings. UaMaol (talk) 04:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your motivation. Do you agree that, with 99% of webpages and scholar articles using climate change in a narrow definition, we have a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here? If you have multiple meanings, that is the first policy to look before you look at the other article criteria (seeing PRIMARYTOPIC as part of precision here). I agree that the proposed title is not ideal, but so far we're lacking a better one. In terms of confusion about the meaning of (general concept), I think the lede can fix that. The lede can clarify for readers what the topic is, but not for people that search or editors that link: (A) a massive amount of internal links are added here monthly that should go to modern climate change now called global warming and (B) people will expect to find that page when using the search box. As we have a long title, most people will come here via (smart) google, or via internal links. Femke Nijsse (talk) 06:02, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
UaMaol: Do you realize that, after the name change, "Climate change (general concept)" would be the destination for those few readers not looking specifically for Earth's current warming? It may not be obvious but: the present Requested Move is part of a strategy in which "Climate change" will then redirect to "Global warming" where whichever article Earth's current warming is discussed, thereby avoiding the need for the vast majority of readers to have to navigate at all. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
@RCraig09: I feel frustration at repeated efforts to negotiate in the immediate locial reasoning by bringing in discrete/separate issues. Can you relate to that? I'm chiming in to just quibble with a little part.... Re your comment the present Requested Move is part of a strategy in which "Climate change" will then redirect to "Global warming"... that just ain't so. Everyone here (I think) wants "climate change" and "global warming" to end up at the same article, but there is will be debate what that article should be called. There is should not be debate that right now, because those discrete issues have no bearing on the core questions presented here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
NEAG, I understand what you are saying, about process. However, substantively, a Move that doesn't inherently consider intelligent redirect of the former (CC) article can actually inspire 'oppose' votes now, as may be the case here: Uamol's reasoning is based in part on the premise that the present article must disambiguate GW vs CC in its lead—which can be avoided altogether by redirecting CC-->GW where the destination article already disambiguates. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
In this thread some want cc > gw; others want gw > cc; still others want gw & cc both to redirect to (title-to-be-determined). Since those future questions have no bearing on Policy and logic needed to sort through the narrow question presented here, hopefully a closer will discount discussion of future questions as logical fallacy and noise. See also my proposed addition "Horse Trading"
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Is the case here — to "actually inspire 'oppose' votes" — such as mine. I am not inherently opposed to the proposed move itself so much as the ulterior purpose of the move, which is to have "climate change" entirely supplant "global warming". NAEG denies ("just ain't so") that the strategy is to redirect "climate change" to "global warming". But that may be quibbling on a very fine point, as he then says that everyone wants both terms to end up at the same article, name of which yet to be determined. Which could be titled "global warming" (with CC a redirect!). Or it could be to "Global warming and climate change" (see #Redirect to global warming and climate change, below). Which gets filled out with more CC content, so when the inevitable complaint of a compound title arrives it will "make sense" to scrape out the lesser component, GW. Which will become (see here) a section — along side "Global cooling" — in the Global surface temperature stub NAEG has already created. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
@JJ: Wow. I can't even conceive how an "ulterior" (?) purpose of this Move Request could possibly result in CC "supplanting" GW, or how GW is a "lesser component" that even could be "scraped out" (of...?). If the CC article is moved, the normal use of the terms "GW" and "CC" that generally governs WP article naming, could (finally!) clear the way to send readers to a single place where the scientific terms are quickly distinguished but the searched-for subject matter is fully discussed. This Move Request doesn't favor any "supplanting" or "scraping". —RCraig09 (talk) 23:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
@UaMaol: You have made a WP:VAGUEWAVE at the policies to oppose, but you failed to explain how they apply and justify your opposition. I too cite WP:PRECISION & WP:ATDAB, but I cite them to support the change. Please elaborate your reasoning on the merits of the proposal by answering these questions
Q1 - Since we have never tried it, how do you know Climate change (general concept) is "confusing to readers"?
Q2 - Do you agree the phrase "climate change" is ambiguous because it might either refer to specific example of climate change we report under the title "global warming" or alternatively might be talking about the general concept of climate change in all forms, due to any cause and at any time of earth's history?
Q3- Do you agree the content of this article (climate change) is the latter meaning in Q2?
Q4- Do you agree that the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC-(by use) of the phrase "climate change" is the first meaning in Q2?
Q5 - Do you agree that there is there is a mismatch between the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC(By use) of the title phrase "climate change" and the content actual content?
Q6 - On one hand you cite WP:PRECISION which starts off Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article but on the other hand you say we can "adequately explain" away the ambiguity in the text. Citing a policy and arguing the opposite is mentioned in our wikilawyer essay. So Q6 is Would the title be at least a little more precise if we add "(general concept)", to distinguish its contents from the specific example of climate change we now report under title "global warming"?
Thanks for helping me understand the basis for your NotVote.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Can we take this offwiki?

If this was a normal workplace or an academic research consortium or alike, now would be the time to stop typing on a keyboard and to get onto a phone call or video call and try to speak to each other more directly. Is there any chance that this could be possible here or is it totally against Wikipedia policies? I think it would be great if a small group of people (perhaps 5) who are very familiar with the history of the Wikipedia articles on climate change and global warming and who are very active editors on these pages or otherwise very involved and responsible, and who are possibly of opposing views now got together in a virtual room in real time and together came up with a good solution to this difficult problem. But I suspect this won't be possible and we'll have to continue to type... Maybe it would help if we had a summary table listing how many people have supported the move proposal that is on the table, how many want to stick with the status quo and how many support a change but just not this one. I know it is not meant to be a "numbers game" and not a vote but it could help the CLOSER to get an overivew, particularly because we have head that "a few people want A" or "many people want B". It might also be that some few people are very vocal and write lots and often on this talk page and drown out (and dominate) others who provide short & targeted responses but don't have time or inclination to engage in a long & detailed discussion. EMsmile (talk) 07:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion! As nobody here is proposing we stick to the status quo, I have full confidence the closer will either relist or close with a change (WP:NOGOODOPTIONS explicitly mentions that if there is support for multiple options, but not the status quo, the closer will make a choice and further discussion between the alternative options can occur). IRL contact is considered to be frowned upon I think. NEAG is making a summary table with arguments & nonvotes, including whether people have actually addressed the question at hand. (sorry if I write to much, trying to make everything small that can help unsure people to reconsider but is off-topic) Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
@EMsmile: That would indeed make it easier, but is against policy. See Wikipedia:Consensus#Pitfalls_and_errors and the discussion of offwiki content discussion NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I mean, anyone can discuss stuff off-wiki, but then anything that those folks talk about needs to be brought back on wiki and then consensus develops here. Red Slash 05:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all (requested move 18 October)

The amount of civility and willingness to engage was stellar and a clear break from past discussions. Let's keep this going :). Special thanks to @Dave souza: and @SmokeyJoe: whose critical comments led to fruitful dialogue, better understanding and improvements to the article content of climate change (general concept), climatology and climate variability. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Ditto what Femkemilene said; @SmokeyJoe and @Dave, I've been silent about the article content issues, as I wanted to sort out the outline/structure first. But I see value in the other way too, so thanks also to @Femkemilene who acted on your critical comments. @All, thanks to everyone who gave direct answers to simple questions! And thanks @Red Slash! With these top articles regularly being debated since their creation 15+ years ago, and subject to an ARB ruling, you're a bit like Bilbo Baggins who slipped into Smaugh's lair and ended up resolving the dispute between the Dwarves, Elves and people of Lake Town~! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your thanks, though I think the retitling of this article is unfinished business. The move was made this morning by Red Slash, in my view prematurely. If the move does stick, I trust those of you in favour of this change will go through all the articles linking to climate change and, wherever appropriate, change the link to Climate change (general concept). . . dave souza, talk 11:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
I think brainstorming future titles for this article is going to be way easier now as we've moved away from the contentious article title. About the internal linking: that is the plan yes. I will detail a proposal how we can do this effectively and collaboratively possibly tonight (which is in like 10 hours for me). Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
@Dave, prior to the move for each correct link there were nine wrong ones. An error rate of 90%, based on Femkemilene's sample analysis a few weeks back. The move inverted this ratio, so the error rate now is just about 10%. So hooray! That problem is already well on its way to the dustbin of history. On the other hand, undoing the move would re-create a 90% error rate, so the proposer should include an explanation how they will fix those 90% of links to prevent that. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Definitely, the past month, including preliminary discussions in the weeks before the Requested Move, has shown the finest example of reasoned collaboration and mutually challenging cooperation that I've experienced in ten years of editing. Reasonable minds may still differ about whether and how to re-name GW, or whether to re-rename CC, but immense progress has been made on how readers access and experience this important family of topics. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • And no fatalities or crippling injuries? :-)
Premature or not, I find the abruptness (bestartlement?) a bit unsettling. I wonder if closures of discussion, moves, etc., should have a (say) 48 hour warning. Something to consider going forward.
Just FYI, there's not really any sort of warning I could provide as per our move procedures. What would be the purpose of such a warning? (I ask sincerely!) Red Slash 22:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
And I think we should thank User:Red Slash for a very reasonable summary. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the abruptness of the closure, move discussions generally run a week and this had been open for 12 days. Closures are usually done without the closer giving notice. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Closing any kind of discussion that is still active can leave a lot of loose ends. The purpose of giving notice (perhaps 48 hours?) of an imminent close is to give everyone a chance to wind things up. Or to register an objection if they think a close is premature. The notice itself could just an added comment, or we could create a template for this purpose. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
JJ, the better place to promote this idea is at the WP:PUMP NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • We've done amazing work together here. Congratulations all around! 23:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you all, from the bottom of my heart. Y'all had a phenomenally friendly and informational discussion that made determining what to do far easier than I expected. I haven't got the scientific background to contribute to the article in a significant way, but I do know Wikipedia naming conventions I did rather feel like Bilbo, and I'm thrilled to see such robust discussion continuing afterwards! I won't participate much and cannot close at all (as now I would be WP:INVOLVED) but will certainly watch and cheer from the sidelines! (PS - I do believe that y'all have said the nicest things anyone has ever said about me on-wiki!) Red Slash 22:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
YES!! I was away for a week from these pages and now I see that the name change and redirect has been done. I am so happy! I am sure it will "stick" and we can now devote our energy to improve and update these articles. Plus to sort out all the various sub-articles, ensuring there is less repetition and overlap than there is currenty. Thanks to everyone involved, NewsAndEventsGuy and Femke Nijsse and all the others! This made my day. :-) EMsmile (talk) 02:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Redirect alternative(s)

From the requested move proposal it seems clear that people want to make a disambiguation between the technical definition of climate change and what normal people (scientists and laypeople alike) use the word for. A future step is to decide what climate change should redirect to. There are three tabled proposals. As we need to discuss the narrow question first, I'll put placeholders in the two redirect proposals that came up in previous discussions and might need further discussion. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Redirect to global warming

Or a gazillion other ideas including renaming global warming

PLACEHOLDER. First, please discuss the PRIMARYTOPIC of the phrase "climate change" and the proposal to add disambiguation to the current title of the climate change article as proposed at #Requested move 18 October 2019. We can always take this up when that is finished.

Convert to a disambiguation page

PLACEHOLDER. First, please discuss the PRIMARYTOPIC of the phrase "climate change" and the proposal to add disambiguation to the current title of the climate change article as proposed at #Requested move 18 October 2019. We can always take this up when that is finished.

Redirect to effects of global warming

This topic was split off from #Requested move 18 October 2019, above.

I propose we consider redirecting this article's current title – "climate change" – to Effects of global warming, as what most readers are most likely interested in is not "climate change" in the abstract, nor the cause of the current climate change, but the effects thereof. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  • (strike out after opening post was tweaked) Malformed proposal we redirect titles, not article content. So I don't really know what is proposed here. And I really hope you'll take time to answer the small narrow questions in the original proposal at some point. All these tangential issues aren't helping focus on the narrow proposal. Whatever you want to do, we can still do after renaming. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Not "malformed", just unclear. Which I have clarified.
It was said above in the RfC (where I originally opened this sub-thread) that "the status quo people seem unwillining to consider compromise options." From the responses seen below, and also in the section SmokeyJoe originally opened as "Merge alternative(s)", it appears it is those who are pushing this rename that are unwilling to consider compromise options. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
I think that is an unfair way of describing the process. I'm actually really proud of all the compromises that have been made up till now by all the various participants. Discussion about where to redirect isn't being stopped, just postponed to have one discussion at a time. It has already been stated multiple times that we are planning to have a 'redirect for discussion' discussion afterwards. Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose redirect to "Effects" of GW. Beyond the distracting proposal to "consider" a redirect, the proposed destination, Effects of global warming, misses the causes of current anthropogenic global warming (the likely desired destination of readers searching for or linked to "CC"), its mitigation, and adaptation, that have been the focus of the "Global warming" article. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose A quick Google Scholar search shows that topic is divided equally between the complete topic (causes/physics, effects, adaptation and mitigation) and those four subtopics. A Google search has a similar outcome, but with an extra topic: many pages describe it as an 'issue' (the defining issue of our time). If not a reading of RSs, what did you base your assertion on that people want to read about the specific subtopic of effects of global warming when they are searching climate change? Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per RCraig09 and and Femkemilene. People searching for "climate change" are looking for a full discussion of current climate change, not just its effects. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
The full range of potential reader interest can't be adequately addressed in any single article. Which seems to me to be a strong argument for a disambiguation page. But that is another alternative not being considered. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
JJ, so you now agree that this particular proposal won't work? Could you hat it? While I am against a disamb page per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, I think that proposal has some merits and can be further discussed (after the move, or even now). (And to address the full range of reader interest, what about our brilliant overview article modern climate change now called global warming. That's a no-brainer, right?) Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, no, I do not "agree that this particular proposal won't work", because there is no basis of knowing whether it would, or not. Please note: my proposal here is that we consider a certain redirect. As to that specific redirect: likewise there is no basis (here, at least) of knowing whether it would, or wouldn't work, becasue we haven't considered it. Which I don't insist on, as my point is not that we should have that discussion now, but that we should have had that discussion previously. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
We have considered it, over the last few days. In my view, this proposal comes close to a WP:SNOWBALL proposal, as the simplest of all googling can show it's not how the word climate change is used. We don't need to go through the entire bureaucracy for every proposal. Let's focus on those proposals that do stand a chance. All of the current ones either benifit from our narrow proposals, or are not affected by it. Femke Nijsse (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Sure, a SNOWBALL close: all of the responders here are unwilling to consider a redirect to "Effects of" GW, which demonstrates my point. As far as that specific redirect having a chance: not if it is not considered, which would include an argument in support of. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Three of the four people responded gave a motivated response and have considered your proposal. That people aren't agreeing with you doesn't mean they haven't considered it in good faith. Your proposal gave one argument in favour, which we showed wasn't backed up by a Google search. If you want to continue this proposal, you might want to try and give evidence to the contrary. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose With this comment make that FOUR out of four. I'm opposed because the only reason to redirect it anywhere is because the target is the PRIMARYTOPIC rather than here. JJ has not even claimed the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of "climate change" is his desired target. All he did was guess what people might want to read, and such guessing is not on the list of suggested methods to WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Femke: My mention of why I think we ought to consider such a redirect was not an argument for the redirect, only a basis why it ought to be considered. A careful consideration would take a broad look at the case for, as well as these summary oppose opinions, which was not done. But never mind that. I would be very interested in how you determine what people really want when they use certain search terms. It looks to me you are evaluating what you find when using various terms. I don't see how that shows what people want to find.
NAEG: "Simple web searches may be problematic" (per WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY), which is why I am curious about Femke's method. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

The rigerousness of my GoogleTesting depends on how difficult the question is. As you indicate, there is a difference between what people search for (as indicated by various indices in Google Trends), and what sources of different qualities say (Google books, google scholar, 'normal' Google. As it's Google's main job to line up what people want to find with what they search, a quick Google search can answer questions as above real quick. For more complicated questions (what do people think about when searching CC vs GW), the entire set of Google Tests must be used to draw a complete picture, helped with some scientific sources on how people perceive these terms. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Femkemilene: Shucks. I really was hoping you had found some clever way of getting at that. As it is, I think that is so lacking in rigor that we really ought to not lean on it so much. And as I think I said over at GW, I suspect that people are malleable in their use of search terms, and will adapt to whatever gets them what they want. (Or think they want.) I think we should stick with what is accurate and meaningful, and let Google (etc.) handle connecting people to where they are well-served even when they don't know the right words. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Redirect to global warming and climate change

As in #Discussion above, rename this page Climate change (general concept) and redirect both global warming and climate change to the GW article renamed Global warming and climate change. This would certainly mean that all those linking to climate change and expecting the GW article would get what they expect, but it could confuse those looking tor the broader aspects of CC, both regional and pre-industrial. Probably would make little difference to those looking for GW. It covers extension of that topic beyond surface temp increases, which was already the case. As a title it's rather a bodge, and somewhat misleading as it only covers part of CC. . . dave souza, talk 14:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Strong support except for the title of the merged article. How about the merged page being Climate Change (Global Warming)? It helps put Climate Change first, as that's the main term for the concept now. The parenthesis helps unify it with the Global Warming topic and clearly differentiates it from Climate change (general concept). Finally, I think saying CC "and" GW implies the subjects are different and this article somehow covers both of them, while having a parenthesis means that the article covers their common definition. Efbrazil (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
@Efbrazil: The reason I favor "GW and CC" is because it does and should distinguish the proper technical definitions of GW and CC, thus educating a public that colloquially uses the terms interchangeably. "CC(GW)" improperly implies GW and CC are the same. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
@RCraig09 Yeah, but in terms of the general public wanting more information on the phenomena, the terms are synonymous. Switching the name from global warming to climate change was done by the George W Bush administration to confuse the issue and delay action way back in 2005. That confusion is still bearing fruit here in 2019. Here's a [good article on the history of the term switch]. I want things simple for the end user, and I think saying "and" introduces confusion. Efbrazil (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong support for coordinated implementation of Dave_souza's first sentence (my summary). Any reader confusion can be efficiently dealt with in hatnote and lead of "GW&CC" article. P.S. #NotAbodge! Efbrazil's 17:18 suggestion OK also. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment While I support a future rename to global warming and climate change, for now that's not the name yet. When (and please only after the climate change (general concept) rename?) we discuss redirects, I would really want us to discuss this under one heading: redirect to global warming. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, it confused me talking about "redirect to global warming" (which I strongly oppose) when the intention clearly was "redirect to article covering both global warming and current climate change" which could start as a retitled version of the current global warming article. The exact title is obviously open to discussion, if both climate change and global warming are redirected there, then both phrases should appear at the start of the lead, and so it makes sense to include these phrases in the title. As for the rename of this article, have you considered climate change (overview)? . . dave souza, talk 19:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I think I have considered (only within my head I think) climate change (overview). The association with climate change to modern climate change is so strong (For me at least), that I expect to find an overview about current climate change under that title. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Well, maybe for you, but since primacy is being given to common usage, note an item in today's news using the broader meaning: Hamill, Jasper (29 October 2019). "Climate change caused mass extinction apocalypse and killed 75% of life on Earth". Metro. Retrieved 29 October 2019. Can't get more mass-market than Metro which is apparently the UK's highest-circulation print newspaper. Usage does seem to have changed over time: the 1992 UNFCCC treaty used climate variability for the broader meaning, but meanings have changed and in SR15, CC "persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer" while climate variability is "on all spatial and temporal scales beyond that of individual weather events". The changing meanings are cited in the climate variability article to Rohli; Anthony J. Vega (5 June 2017). Climatology. Jones & Bartlett Learning. pp. 274–. ISBN 978-1-284-11998-5. but that wording seems to have persisted across several editions of the text, and of course it's academic usage rather than common usage. . . . dave souza, talk 22:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
The plural of anecdote is not data. If you want to get an honest estimate of the relative balance of the two meanings in contemporary journalism, take a random sample of 10, 20, (or however many you have the patience to check) recent articles that contain the term "climate change", and count how many refer to global warming vs. "general concept". But I think we all know it wouldn't be a close contest, right?
I too recently noticed a non-global-warming "climate change" in the wild (in this comment on the /r/AskHistorians subreddit). But of course it only stood out to me over the dozens of global-warming "climate change"s I see every week precisely because it was kind of unusual, and because I had been reading this naming discussion. Colin M (talk) 22:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
@ Colin M, agree that the plural of anecdote isn't data. Since climate change since 1980 has been dominated by global warming, discussion of change in that context can use the terms interchangeably. The real test is how often discussion of earlier long term changes use "climate change", or if they avoid that term, what do they call climatic changes pre the industrial revolution or otherwise influenced by AGW? . . . dave souza, talk 11:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
@Dave, re Well, maybe for you... I chat people up everywhere I go, every chance I get. Since we start talking about this, I've been telling people (non-scientists/non-academics) that wikipedia talks about two different things at "climate change" and "global warming" and there has been a 100% reaction rate - everyone is puzzled how that could be so. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
@ NAEG, when you ask people, do you go on to ask them if climate change began between 1830 and 1880, and if so, what do they call climatic changes before that period? Also, do you tell the puzzled people that NASA, NOAA and EPA (and, I think, others: see Talk:Global warming/Archive 75#Sources: global warming definitions, relation to climate change) highlight differences between GW and CC? . . . dave souza, talk 11:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Premature Most commenters find the narrow rename proposal at Climate change to have sufficient merit to support the narrow proposal on its own. We should execute it, and then take stock, collecting data on users/reader's reactions. Meanwhile, some in this thread want GW >> CC, others want CC >> GW, and still others wants both to point at a 3rd title (yet to be determined). I look forward to debating all that after we implement the narrow rename proposal of Climate change >> Climate change (general concept). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Premature move, as below, since it has now created a host of links to the wrong article. Please correct these. . . . dave souza, talk 11:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Correction, using the sample analysis performed by Femkemilene during preliminary discussions (in userspace).... before the move, for each correct incoming link there were nine wrong ones. The wrong ones linked the general concept of climate change, when they really meant the content now at Global warming. So the former right:wrong ratio was a lousy 1:9. The redirect flipped it so right:wrong is now 9:1. If the real issue is "wrong links" then we should be dancing in the streets celebrating this massive improvement. Does that help, or is your #1 concern something else? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
My concern is that linking is now badly broken in at least one article, and article wording needs adapted to the change – before wasn't so bad, as those going to CC met a first paragraph with a link to GW if that's what they wanted, whereas now there's no obvious link to the general page for anyone looking for an overview or CC outwith the global post-industrial context. As expressed in earlier comments, don't feel the change is needed or ideal, but accept others have done more to examine the issue than me, so will now focus on other editing. . . dave souza, talk 19:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
@Dave souza: FYI after last years round of title debates I started working on a resposne in userspace starting with creating climate system, which Femke ran with (far more expertly than I could have). At the time, I volunteered to be clerk for an effort to do an audit of these links. I never expected it to go fast, and if its done manually it will be slow, and if there aren't volunteers it will take forever. So the need was apparent that we could use some expert help on the category/template/script side to help figure out how to do the work. But programmers aren't going to do their work unless there is an actionable project laid out. Now that this move has happened, I am already actively reaching out to people who may be able to help create a sensible set of tools so this large task doesn't overwhelm us. In the meantime, if you find an article that you think is mangled beyond your willingness to WP:SOFIXIT yourself, by all means, post a note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climate_change and I or another editor will take a look. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Does "premature" apply to a prospective move as proposed in this sub-section? Or the now implemented CC move and redirect? If the latter, well, premature or not, the link issues still would have to be dealt with. The abruptness of the move has left us rather unprepared to deal with the link issues, but here we are, so let's just start fixing them. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Agree, thanks and carry on! . . dave souza, talk 19:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Use summary style so that readers get what they're looking for

Improve the lead to bring to the fore the point that "Since the industrial revolution the climate has increasingly been affected by human activities driving global warming,[1] and the terms are commonly used interchangeably in that context.[2]",[3] and in SUMMARY STYLE have a [sub]section on Modern climate change and global warming with a top link to main GW article.in progress. This section should outline the GW article, pretty much replicating its lead. That way, anyone coming to this page gets the overview of the whole topic covering both natural and anthropogenic causes, and can go to the GW article for more detail if wanted. Anyone going to GW is already looking for the more specific context of modern climate change (with rare exceptions looking for ice age or earlier GW). . dave souza, talk 14:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 7 November 2019

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: not moved - consensus against (closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 (talk) 08:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


Climate change (general concept) → Climate change throughout history

I haven't stopped thinking about this move and how it just seemed like there must have been a better title than this unNATURAL disaster. (Haha, unnatural disaster, just like modern climate change!) What about "Climate change throughout history?" I know that this is technically a misnomer as history is supposed to be "what humans have recorded", but even our article on the Milky Way uses the word in a less literal sense to mean "the past up until now".

Regardless of what you decide, this article isn't going to be at a perfect title, but we never want to use parenthetical disambiguation when a descriptive title is available. I do think that this proposed title follows our naming conventions well and is much more transparent than "(general concept)". I am only proposing this; I leave it to you to decide. Red Slash 01:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Opposed As the general concept, this article is not just about ancient climate change, nor about a chronological history of past climate change. It is just as applicable to future climate change. For example, there will be new meteor impacts, rearrangement of earth's plates and ocean basins, evolution will continually bring further changes, the milankovitch cycles will alter how sun's energy hits the planet... all of these will cause future climatee change, and this article is about how its worked in the past and will continue to work in the future. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Beyond the acknowledged problem with the somewhat unscientific word, "history", and NAEG's observation that the subject's concepts will be applicable in the future and not just "historically", the suffix "(general concept)" is well suited to the audience that is likely to search for this densely scientific subject matter. Substantive concerns should trump formal guidelines such as disfavoring a parenthetic expression, especially if—as here—the suffix serves to disambiguate. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I already not voted above, but I'd just like to add that I still favor merging to Climate system#Changes within the climate system. But I don't feel strongly enough about it to push for that, at least at the present time. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Oppose? I agree with previous comments that this would change the scope of the article a bit. I slightly prefer the current scope (with examples of future and possible causes), to the scope that this title implies. I prefer the proposed title over the current title. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Seems to me we already have that article. See Paleoclimatology NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
There might indeed be too much overlap with that article. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Not really. "Paleo" climatology is at geological scale, where human history is not even a blip. Not that there couldn't be an article as proposed, but it's not this one, nor paleoclimatology. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, too soon after the previous RM. Chastise User:Red Slash for bold-closing the previous discussion despite holding a strong opinion. That was BADNAC. He should have !voted, not closed and then quick restarted a fresh process. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per NAEG and RCraig09. NightHeron (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - While the current title is clumsy, the proposed change is not an improvement. Jusdafax (talk) 03:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose As noted above: using history is problematic. I'd also like to see the dust settle before any more suggestions are proposed. I think the current title covers the content best. --mikeu talk 00:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose The meaning of "throughout history" is vague and completely negates the reason the page was moved in the first place.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
  • I would like to kindly let SmokeyJoe know that he is in fact not able to read my mind about the move request that I closed prior to this request. I explicitly mentioned in that close that while consensus was clear on many aspects, no one liked the title that was actually proposed, Climate change (general concept). I thought it would be obvious that this new move request was to try to find a better compromise title. But no, apparently Smokey thought he could read my mind and find out that I actually secretly had a strongly biased opinion way back from the start that climate change (general concept)... was a bad name for the article... despite the fact... that I was the one who moved it... to that title... wow. Red Slash 05:33, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Climate is not the average of weather

The article states that "Long-term averages of weather in a region constitute the region's climate." Not strictly true and misleading in context of global warming debate. Climate also describes the typical range of extremes and frequency and variability of weather phenomena to be expected in a region, based on statistical distributions. PaulusPigus (talk) 11:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

You're kinda on the wrong page; see-also Climate#Definition. But, yes: climate is the statistics of weather William M. Connolley (talk) 12:09, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climate_variability_and_change/Archive_7&oldid=1005103839"