This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I have a few small suggestions for improvements or points for discussion:
There seems to be a mixture in formatting for terms: sometimes they are in italics, sometimes in quotation marks. Shouldn't they all be in italics unless they are actually quotes? Or perhaps I am missing something.
I've just swapped the image in the lead as I felt it should rather be an image about the term, not about the scientific basis. Just to ensure that when readers come to this page they get a quick visual clue. The graph that was there before fits better as the lead image for climate communication (which already uses a similar stripe chart).
Do we really need the "further reading" section? Who decides what's in there? I would delete it. If there are any important publications in there then surely they are already used as in-line citations, or should be.
Should we change the quality label from C to B?
Three of the references go to Twitter, which gets marked up in read in the Unreliable Script plug-in. Should we remove/replace the? Or can we make an exception here. EMsmile (talk) 07:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
1. Done Now italicized.
2. Needs discussion A difficult choice, because naming something is an abstract process and difficult to "picture". Google Trends chart is OK (I plan to update it), though I'm thinking of a quote box with text from the 2020 Bioscience article:
"Despite 40 years of global climate negotiations, with few exceptions, we have generally conducted business as usual and have largely failed to address this predicament. The climate crisis has arrived and is accelerating faster than most scientists expected. It is more severe than anticipated, threatening natural ecosystems and the fate of humanity."
3. N The "Further reading" entries provide longer discussions of the issue of how to name climate change. They're not cited for minor specific content in the Wikipedia article. On balance, they're reliable and the section should stay.
4. N As a main editor, I'm too biased to change the article rating myself. Not an impactful decision, anyway.
5. N Twitter is as reliable a source as its account owner (note the Twitter accounts, @IPCC_CH, @NASA, @NOAA). Also, some of the three Twitter references are cited for what the tweet says along the lines of a primary source. They should stay.
Thanks. Further replies: to 1: I see many more instances where terms need to be italicized in this article. I've changed a few of them in the top third of the article but stopped after a while in case my edits would cause disagreement (?).
To 2: I don't think a quote would be suitable as a visual representation in the lead. This particular quote is rather lengthy and doesn't really talk about the term climate crisis but about the topic itself. The quote would be OK for somewhere further down but it really is just an example of a prominent source using the term but not about discussing the term's strengths and weaknesses.
To 3: Such a "further reading" section will be another section that will need to be carefully curated and updated from time to time. But I don't feel strongly about it. If you want to keep and update it from time to time, no problem.
To 4: I've changed it to B now. I think that's fair. Overall, it's quite a high quality article (thanks for all your work on this. According to "Who wrote that" you wrote 78% of this article.)
To 5: Regarding twitter, it's generally regarded as unreliable (see here), but for this particular purpose where you just want to show that someone is using the term, it should be OK as a source, I guess. EMsmile (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Done Now italicized.
Needs discussion A difficult choice, because naming something is an abstract process and difficult to "picture". Google Trends chart is OK (I plan to update it), though I'm thinking of a quote box with text from the 2020 Bioscience article:
The "Further reading" entries provide longer discussions of the issue of how to name climate change. They're not cited for minor specific content in the Wikipedia article. On balance, they're reliable and the section should stay.
