Talk:Bølling–Allerød warming

Book name

Hello, I am not sure how to change something on Wikipedia, but I feel it is important that the correct reference is give to this article.

The first reference should be "Principles of paleoclimatology" not principles of climatology, as I have found after extensive searching in my University's library system!

I believe I saw this mistake in a related article, though cannot remember which one.

I've checked your claim: You are right. I have corrected the book name. --129.13.156.135 (talk) 13:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal

This page and Late Glacial Interstadial apparently cover the same warming period. Both their lead sentences even link to the other as another name for the same event. PointlessUsername (talk) 08:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

That would be correct on the definitions given in the articles, but different sources give different definitions. The paper at [1] for example, treats the Late Glacial Interstadial as earlier and the Bølling–Allerød as later. The differences between experts are probably mainly because different areas have different climatic records, so that, for example, a warm period in one area is not found in another. Some sources have the Bølling and Allerød as warm phases separated by the Older Dryas cold phase, and if I understand correctly, the merged term Bølling–Allerød warming applies in areas where there was no intermediate cold phase. We really need an expert to sort the articles out - or someone who has full access to scientific papers to devote the time needed for a full scale study of the issue - and I am not sure a merger is wise with our present level of understanding. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Closing, given the uncontested objection and no support with stale discussion. Klbrain (talk) 10:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Merge discussion 2

All of the (handful) of recent papers that use both terms say that they are completely equivalent (Last Interglacial Interstadial and Bølling–Allerød Interstadial anyway) e.g. [2], [3] [4], therefore these two articles are duplicates. If there are actual (rather than percieved) discrepancies between usage the two terms in current literature then they can just be discussed in the text rather than warranting having two articles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support. I objected to a previous proposal mainly because I doubted whether anyone available had the expertise to conduct the merger, but if you are willing to take it on then a merger is fine. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support Even if these are not exactly the same, one article on the topic with refs to the naming would be better.

Johnjbarton (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

support though it may be worth considering if we could bring bølling-Allerød back later as an article focussing on the European continent/northern hemisphere, where the term is from? Not entirely sure that'd be useful, but it's a thought. --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• Hemiauchenia can you look at the instructions in Wikipedia:Articles for merging. I think it would be best to make a formal proposal so that other people are notified and can contribute. Also, which article do you propose keeping and which change to a redirect? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  Bolling allerod ---> last glacial insterstadial would probably be best. IMO. --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  I consider "Bolling Allerod interstadial" to be the preferred title for the combined article, though which way the merge goes around doesn't really matter in that case.Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)