InformationToKnowledge

Welcome!

Hello, InformationToKnowledge! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN! 【Click to Discuss】 09:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC) Getting Started Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Get help at the Teahouse Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions Department directory Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper) Things to do Task Center • Be bold in editing Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguation • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

October 2022

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. I see you're making some good updates to tipping points in the climate system. If there was more text you copied from other articles, please make a dummy edit to provide attribution in the edit summary. Femke (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Took me a little while to understand that template, but *I think* it's done correctly now. Do not think it needs to be done anywhere else for now.

A question, if I may: what exactly are Wikipedia's rules on including graphics (figures) from scientific papers? I tried to check out the copyright-related help pages and FAQs, but none of them appear to address this question specifically. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks :). One small point of improvement: ideally you should link to the article in your edit summary. No need to correct this however, as you were copying your own text.

Figures from scientific papers can be uploaded to Wikipedia if they are published under a compatible license, such as a suitable Creative Commons licence. Some / (almost all?) open-access papers have a suitable licenses. Really old images are the public domain and can be uploaded too. Otherwise, you'll have to ask the original author if they're willing to upload the image to Wikipedia themselves (or do it for them with a layer of bureaucracy to verify they are okay with it).

If you have a specific question, feel free to ask. (For difficult question, I'll refer you to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions). Femke (talk) 16:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you :) For context, I was working on the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation page recently, and I feel like I finally got its text to a pretty good state (except for one questionable section - see the talk page), but it's now considerably longer and would certainly benefit from a few more graphics to break up solid walls of text in its latter half.

This is what I was thinking of:

• AMOC stability section: could either do with a Stommel Box model schematic from this page (which been proposed for a merge into the AMOC page, but I rather favor reworking it into a Stommel Box Model page instead) or one of these three graphics from a February study describing the issues with classic box models. I think the third graphic is the best looking-one, but the fourth one is likely easier to understand (and to fit on the page).
• Impacts of a slowdown: I think that this graphic from an ESD study is by far the best option here. Other options, like these two candidates from this study just cannot compare.
• Impacts of a shutdown: unfortunately, most of the relevant studies are not open-access. Vellinga-Wood pdf is now 20 years old, so I suspect the images from may now count as public domain, and would still be relevant as an example of the general theory of impacts. Additionally, if we are to remove one of the more speculative sections like I suggested on the talk page, and instead extend this section with studies like this one, then there would be enough space for an additional graphic: i.e. this one or this one.
• Observations: I believe that this graphic from here is a good way of demonstrating the difference between the direct observations of the AMOC and its reconstructions.
• Climate model projections: I think that this graphic from here would be very useful.

InformationToKnowledge (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I can't immediately find a licence on the Science article you linked, but the Nature and ESD articles are published under a suitable license ("Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License"), so you should be able to upload those, as long as you provide attribution.

You'll have to look for similar licenses for each article. Unfortunately, the law on public domain is insane, and it often boils down to material entering the public domain 70 years after the author's death.

Two quick tips

• It's usually more effective on Wikipedia to write shorter talk page messages. People are busy/lazy
• Wikipedia has it's own "peer" review processes (with peer here meaning an editor who doesn't necessary have topic expertise). When you're happy with the article, you can sign it up as a WP:Good article nominee. It's a great process to ensure articles are sufficiently easy to read for a broad public, and to get to know Wikipedia's ins and outs.

Femke (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Very impressive work on sea level rise and tipping points in the climate system! Femke (talk) 07:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

The type of sources Wikipedia loves

Again, very impressed by your contributions, thanks for all the effort you put in them.

I noticed you cite a lot of primary sources. Primary sources have their place on Wikipedia, but if possible, reviews / assessment report are preferred. See WP:SCIRS ("Cite reviews, don't write them"). This also allows you to write in WP:WIKIVOICE; with statements such as

• Sea level rise is higher along US coasts than the global average
• rather than source X in year Y estimates that sea level is higher along US coasts.

Writing things directly is the preferred style on Wikipedia. Occasionally a primary source is really ground-breaking and gets immediate support from the scientific community. In that case, primary sources can be really valuable. Femke (talk) 07:48, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough! I can certainly see the purpose of the policy.

The reasoning behind my approach was that in a lot of the climate-related articles I looked at, the body of the text is a tangled crow's nest of primary sources that are added in waves whenever one gets a burst of widespread media coverage (or just the news articles without primary sources), and with little regard for how they fit together, or even the specifics of what they say. The reviews like IPCC reports end up somewhere awkwardly in the middle of a section, with a range of alarming citations before them and a passage or two claiming they were too conservative/already outpaced by newer research right after ¹. The readers just wouldn't understand how the review arrived at its findings, so I decided to re-arrange those articles to walk any reader through a rough timeline of notable research on the subject. I agree I might have overdone it at times, but so far, I have not seen anyone else challenge the sections I rewrote on those grounds. There'll probably be more discussion about which sources to keep and which to let go once any of those articles are nominated for Good/Featured status.

¹ The NOAA report citation you trimmed from the SLR page was originally the perfect example of what I meant. "In February 2021, researchers suggested that past projections for global sea level rise by 2100 reported by the IPCC were conservative, and that sea levels will rise more than previously expected. In 2022, NOAA published a detailed Sea Level Rise Technical Report suggesting a rise of between 0.6 and 2.1m with high confidence." The first sentence is that Ocean Science citation I had to expand significantly for it to make sense in context, and the second is a completely out of place suggestion that the NOAA was contradicting the IPCC based on a misunderstanding of what the report actually meant. So, the statement I moved to lead was a compromise to avoid junking the (otherwise reliable) citation entirely. I have adjusted it a little further by now. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

You're absolutely right that most content on Wikipedia gets added in waves, and requires a lot of tidying up to make sense :). Your approach is better than that.

A timeline of scientific thought is a way of organising info I dislike (but other editors may disagree), because usually it's more wordy than necessary. A typical reader on Wikipedia only spends a couple of minutes on an article, so that shorter articles can more effectively convey information. That means that older research is deleted or omitted unless newer research often looks back on the changes in understanding of a topic.

We often get edits like "It's even worse than we thought", which can breach WP:neutral point of view. Thanks for spotting it + tidying it up.

One less important thing: the lead is meant to be a summary of the body. So any information found there, should also be found in the body of the article. I'm especially conservative with adding information about a single country in the lead, to make sure I don't contribute to the WP:systemic bias towards the global north that is so prevalent on Wikipedia. Here, singling out the US might make sense, as I believe it to be one of the more extreme cases. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:32, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

A fair point about wordiness. For me, a counterpoint is that a timeline also allows one who is short on time to quickly scroll to the end anyway, while for those who want more detail, they help to establish the history to those phenomena and that they (generally) did not come out of the blue to the scientific world. (Which would then help to cut down on "ripped from the headlines" edits a bit.)

I am very well aware of the systemic bias issues as well, but unfortunately it's not the only example in the article: i.e. "Future effects" subsection of "Coastal areas" has only two paragraphs, and the second one is written entirely from the US POV. I presume that digging into AR6 would allow one to expand/re-write that whole section with a more global focus, and then update the lead accordingly. Perhaps enough info can be pulled together from the country-level impact articles as well. Either way, I'll have to look at it next time.

One last thing: I guess you can see that I decided to assign an image to each climate tipping point sub-section in that article, and I think it works quite well now. Unfortunately, it seems that for the last, more speculative one, stratocumulus clouds, the only good image might be this one, from a Carbon Brief article. Carbon Brief uses CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, which apparently makes the files from there unsuitable for Wikimedia. I was told in an unrelated conversation that files with this or similar license could be uploaded directly to Wikipedia under fair use, but I am not sure if any of the licensing options in Wikipedia's uploader would fit for such files. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

AR6 is always to go-to location for globalising Wikipedia articles :). It's such a shame that the National Climate Assessment reports only reported on global issues once, and have reverted to only publishing info about the US. They usually wrote with less jargon.

I'm not the most knowledgeable on fair use on Wikipedia, but in general we're quite strict on it, so I don't think it will qualify. See WP:fair use.

That said, there's been talk with CarbonBrief about the release of some images under a suitable license. User:Clayoquot will know more. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this image would not qualify as fair use in the English Wikipedia. Unfortunately, this particular image doesn't belong to Carbon Brief; the Carbon Brief article attributes it to a copyrighted paper by Schneider et al. I checked the Schneider paper and it contains the same image, which means that the image is under an exclusive license to Springerlink and lord knows Springerlink won't release it in a million years. So even if/when Carbon Brief loosens the licensing on its own images, this image wouldn't be affected. The volunteers at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab might be able to create a free version of this image if you ask there. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:08, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Normally, the original author would retain the copyright after publishing, unless something shady happens. I don't trust Springer to not do shady things, so that would need to be confirmed with them (I doubt the original author will have sufficient copyright knowledge). If they confirm, you could contact the author, and ask them to upload it via the Upload Wizard on Commons. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

My understanding is that when an author grants an exclusive license to a journal, they are effectively transferring the copyright. "An exclusive licensee of one or more of the exclusive right (sic) is considered to be the owner of those rights." [1] I'm not an expert in this stuff though, so the people at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions would know better. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:27, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

A welcome to Wikipedia climate change topics!

A video describing Editing Wikipedia for medical content (by WikiProject Medicine)

Welcome to Wikipedia and WikiProject Medicine

Hi InformationToKnowledge, thank you for your contributions. I know you've already received the general Welcome note but I'd like to add another one as I can see you're editing on climate change topics which is great. I suggest that you put a sentence or two on your user profile page so that your user name no longer show up in red?

WikiProjects bring groups of editors together on particular topics. You might like to join this WikiProject:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Climate change

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Also, if you have time in the future, can you help me with effects of climate change and effects of climate change on oceans? Both are important articles which pull together info from many other articles. EMsmile (talk) 12:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi EMsmile! I have noticed your edits before, and I did spot the WikiProject as well; I guess I just did not bother to make my participation official until now.

So far, my plan was to start at tipping points in the climate system and then radiate outwards from it to update all of the related articles to the same high standard. I am nearly done with this goal, and the "effects" articles are certainly one of the things I would like to start cleaning up after that. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 19:26, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Great! I don't know if you've already seen this project (under which most of my work on Wikipedia currently falls), see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/SDGs/Communication_of_environment_SDGs. I'm curious how you got onto Wikipedia editing? You seem very knowledgeable on climate change topics and have some time to edit Wikipedia and you've grasped the editing rules quickly. That's exactly the kind of people we need! So I am curious about your motivation for this work, or the "spark" that got you started. If you prefer to reach out to me directly about this, please see here on how to contact me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EMsmile#Contact_me. EMsmile (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh, it's going to be a rather long story, so some other time, maybe. :) Always glad to read your kind words, though!

And thank you for linking me to the SDG meetup. Not only is it a handy reference for the articles themselves, but the internal stats it uses like that quality score and its calculation are certainly something to keep in mind. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 22:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Ah that's good. I feel very strongly about this quality scoring system. It's more accurate than the B and C labels on the talk pages. But also more time consuming to assess. EMsmile (talk) 11:15, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

By the way, I'd love your critical brain to take a look at the new article on ocean temperature. It needs more inputs. The difficulty here is to not repeat all the details again from other articles but to just give an easy to understand overview what ocean temperature is, how it impacts on other processes, how it's measured and how a changing ocean temperature impacts the other processes again. Can you believe it we didn't actually have a Wikipedia article on "ocean temperature" until a few days ago? We only had one on sea surface temperature and "ocean temperature" used to redirect to there. EMsmile (talk) 11:15, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Please stop

For the last few minutes you have been adding a section on climate change to Magrebi towns and cities. Please stop. consider this a warning that should you continue, further action may be required. Thanks. - Roxy the dog 16:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

So...reversions for "Not supported by sources"? Should I point out exactly where the provided sources state what I add on each page, or is the issue somewhat different from how it appears? InformationToKnowledge (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I just looked at the references you cited, and the names of all those cities are not there, hence the edits you made are not supported. - Roxy the dog 17:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Goodness me, I see there are more of the same. Could you please revert all your edits to the project using those sources, as the sources do not support them. Thanks. - Roxy the dog 17:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

You didn't look closely enough. If you scroll to the Supplementary Information of the paper cited, it allows you to download two Excel tables with raw data used, and it has the names of all of those cities and many others. Obviously, that table is practically unreadable for normal humans, which is where the second source (the website of one of the study's authors) comes from. If you scroll to the fourth page, you'll see a map interactive "Current vs. future cities". That interactive displays data from the paper in an immediately presentable way, and it is the primary source. You'll see the names of the cities, the future analogue and the mean annual temperature change just by mousing over the right dots, and once you open the interactive in a new tab, you'll see the warmest/coldest month data. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I am not persuaded, See WP:SYNTH. - Roxy the dog 17:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how it applies here. This is scientific research, presented in two formats by one of the people behind it. There's nothing "original" about it in the sense meant by Wikipedia's rules.

I'm curious: would it make a difference if I were to use the direct link to the interactive map itself ( https://hooge104.shinyapps.io/future_cities_app/ ) as my second reference? I was reluctant to do this because it's not clear from the link's title that it belongs to the researchers themselves, but it'll show you and any other reader everything immediately. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Interesting dilemma. I'll follow this discussion to see what comes out of it. I am leaning towards agreeing with InformationToKnowledge's argument but look forward to learning what's right in this case. - Perhaps somewhat related is a discussion that I once started at WikiProject Countries where I argued the standard outline for all country articles should have a section on climate change issues. Perhaps now is a good time to restart that discussion. Please see here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries/Templates#In_which_section_is_climate_or_climate_change_meant_to_be_included? which later moved to here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries/Archive_13#How_much_content_about_climate_change_is_warranted_in_country_articles? EMsmile (talk) 09:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I suggest to improve the section heading as I find "please stop" not very suitable. It makes it sound like InformationToKnowledge was a vandal. @User:Roxy the dog: What speaks against making the section heading more clear, like I had done? EMsmile (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Interesting discussion there. I would be inclined to agree, but I would want to first make sure that there's enough material to make this a viable approach for all countries. As we can see from the archived thread, a lot of the less-developed countries have had their portals deleted because there simply wasn't enough traffic. It's a safe bet that many of those same countries (outside of particularly vulnerable exceptions like the small island states) would have almost no climate research about them in particular; at best, there might be a handful of region-level papers.

As such, I think that sandboxing environment sections of the least developed/least economically important countries would be a good way to test the viability of this idea. If adequate sections can be made for those countries, then there would be no doubt about the better-known ones, and we could proceed with formalizing climate change section as part of the standard outline. Having looked at a few articles on even the developed countries, the current climate/environment sections they have are certainly...inadequate. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 08:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

For transparency, both me and EMsmile came here after a request for guidance at Talk:Sea level rise.

@Roxy: while I understand why you posted a, let's say grumpy, message to start with, I think you've become a bit to bitey. ITK is a new editor, so a bare link to SYNTH isn't an ideal explanation. The text was supported, and expert WP:Self-published sources sources are acceptable outside of WP:Biographies of Living People.

@ITK. I think your edit could be improved by (a) directly citing the SI if you use it, or using the "at=" parameter in {{cite journal}} (b) avoid editorialising such as "by a whole 7.4C" (in Fez, Morocco) (c) adding the country to the city you compare it with (many people do not know where Rabat would be). In general, when doing a lot of similar edits, it's wise to test it out on a few articles first and wait for feedback. If you don't hear anything after a few days, do a couple more. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for this clarification!

I wasn't aware of the "at=" parameter before! It certainly seems like I can use it to directly point to both the relevant table in the SI for the paper, and to the sub-page title in the interactive where the map is located to avoid this issue in the future. Point taken on editorializing as well.

When it comes to city comparisons, though, I assumed that specifying the other city's country is unnecessary when its located in the immediate vicinity of the city in the article. Sure, the average person may not know where Rabat is, but someone who is already reading an article about Funchal would presumably know about the capital of its nearest neighbour. (Of course, when the city's 2050 analogue is on a different continent (i.e. Lomé, whose analogue is Managua, Nicaragua) specifying the country is not even a question, and I have already that whenever that situation arose so far.)

To provide another example: once I (and anyone else who may decide to add this data to city articles) get to North America (I am leaving that region for last because I would rather go through the continents in the same order as they are listed in the AR6), a lot of the city comparisons are within neighbouring countries, or even other US states. I.e. Montreal's 2050 analogue is Cincinnati and Ottawa's 2050 analogue is Pittsburgh. Do we write that those cities are located in the US (or even specify it down to individual states - a courtesy almost no other country tends to get in these articles), or do we assume that the average reader is still WEIRD and would know where they are already? I would prefer to settle on a consistent approach from the start rather than end up with one that has an implicit Global North bias. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 08:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I see you've started again with the unsourced commentary on climate change. I've reverted a token few, I hope you'll stop and remove any I couldn't yet be bothered with. - Roxy the dog 08:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I just looked at Fez and you had three sources that didn't support your text. This really should stop. - Roxy the dog 08:32, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@InformationToKnowledge The last source did not fully support the text at least (the CAT thermometer does not mention RCP 4.5). I've tagged a similar statement in sea level rise. Could you fix this in that article? If you want to proceed, you will now need to find explicit prior WP:consensus to reinsert the text. The way to do this is to open a discussion on the most prominent city, and wait for people to weigh in.

@Roxy the dog: the sources almost support the text. Please keep in mind that this is quite a common thing within scientific publishing (unfortunately), and that expert editors often use the same style where they insert some subject-specific common knowledge. While this is sometimes allowed per WP:WTC, usually the sourcing requirements are higher on Wikipedia than in scientific literature. It would be better to help new editors than to ask them to stop. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Almost? That means that they dont meet the level of supporting the text, yes? - Roxy the dog 09:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely. I'm not suggesting you do nothing to improve the text, but there are two friendlier options:

• Tag and wait a bit
• Do a partial revert per WP:REVONLY (and, to reduce the burden on you, only do this in one example article and ask ITK to do the rest).

—Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I already asked, to no avail, and it continues. - Roxy the dog 09:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

You asked for a complete reversion, rather than an improvement. I don't think that was the correct response to text that is close to being acceptable, and I understand why ITK choose not to follow that. They did not follow my advice completely either (only reinsert in a small number of articles after solving the issues, and wait for feedback before continuing). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:56, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

But the issues remain, they are not solved, nothing has been done. The sources used are not acceptable - they do not support the text. - Roxy the dog 10:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

In green what is supported by the sources, in red what isn't. Most of it is green. And yes, not everything suggested has been done. The location of the information int the source has been better specified, but there is still not adequate text-source integrity and some of the cities still do not mention the country (f.i. Mosul is not yet said to be part of Iraq).

A 2019 paper published in PLOS One estimated that under Representative Concentration Pathway 4.5, a "moderate" scenario of climate change where global warming reaches ~2.5–3 °C (4.5–5.4 °F) by 2100, the climate of Fez in the year 2050 would most closely resemble the current climate of Mosul. The annual temperature would increase by 2.7 °C (4.9 °F), and the temperature of the warmest month by 7.4 °C (13.3 °F), while the temperature of the coldest month would increase by 2.3 °C (4.1 °F). According to Climate Action Tracker, the current warming trajectory appears consistent with 2.7 °C (4.9 °F), which closely matches RCP 4.5. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: "nothing has been done."

How?! I'll quote the earlier post on this very talk page by Femke:

"I think your edit could be improved by (a) directly citing the SI if you use it, or using the "at=" parameter in {{cite journal}}"

This is exactly what I have done. There is now "at=" parameter referring to the Table in Supporting Information of the study, as well as referring to the specific page of the web source. Both of those contain the exact values I'm referring to.

That suggestion by Femke was also left on my talk page six days ago. If you thought that this form of citation remained unacceptable, you have had six days to voice your disagreement, and you haven't.

@Femke

"and some of the cities still do not mention the country (f.i. Mosul is not yet said to be part of Iraq)."

I mean, I already replied with my opinion on this subject five days ago. Just in case, I'll restate myself again.

When it comes to city comparisons, though, I assumed that specifying the other city's country is unnecessary when its located in the immediate vicinity of the city in the article. Sure, the average person may not know where Rabat is, but someone who is already reading an article about Funchal would presumably know about the capital of its nearest neighbour. (Of course, when the city's 2050 analogue is on a different continent (i.e. Lomé, whose analogue is Managua, Nicaragua) specifying the country is not even a question, and I have already that whenever that situation arose so far.)

To provide another example: once I (and anyone else who may decide to add this data to city articles) get to North America (I am leaving that region for last because I would rather go through the continents in the same order as they are listed in the AR6), a lot of the city comparisons are within neighbouring countries, or even other US states. I.e. Montreal's 2050 analogue is Cincinnati and Ottawa's 2050 analogue is Pittsburgh. Do we write that those cities are located in the US (or even specify it down to individual states - a courtesy almost no other country tends to get in these articles), or do we assume that the average reader is still WEIRD and would know where they are already? I would prefer to settle on a consistent approach from the start rather than end up with one that has an implicit Global North bias.

This was my reasoning. In this case, the assumption is that the people from Morocco/reading a page about a Moroccan city are already very likely to know to where Mosul is located, in the same way as the people reading a page about Montreal are very likely to know where Cincinnati is located. Again, one can reasonably argue with this logic, but I assumed that since I did not receive any reply to that post in five days, this reasoning was accepted.

"[red, supposedly unsupported text] where global warming reaches ~2.5–3 °C (4.5–5.4 °F) by 2100"

Well...the page on RCPs itself states that RCP 4.5 is associated with this temperature range? It's not exactly easy to miss there, either. I suppose that I could explicitly cite the paper referenced by the RCP page: I just felt that it would be weird to gift it dozens (potentially hundreds) of Wikipedia page citations to back up a minor point which verges on common knowledge in climate circles. And I hope that once the page is considered to support the fact that RCP 4.5 amounts to 2.5-3 degrees, saying that CAT's projection of 2.7 degrees is close to that range can be accepted as simply putting two and two together, rather than something requiring a separate citation to state the obvious? In fact, the SSP2-4.5 median projection in the AR6 is exactly 2.7 degrees, but I don't see how a confusing sentence structure like "According to Climate Action Tracker, the current warming trajectory appears consistent with 2.7 °C (4.9 °F)}}, which is exactly the same as the median temperature projection for SSP2-4.5 (the successor of RCP 4.5)." is going to be an improvement for the general reader.InformationToKnowledge (talk) 10:47, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't reply to the comment about Mosul. Given were on the English-language Wikipedia, it is likely that an article about a city of Morocco is read by tourists. Furthermore, I don't think people in Morocco would know a city of that size on a different continent. A consistent approach would be that you would only omit the country when the city is a) larger than say 3 million or a capital and b) in a neighbouring country.

RCP 4.5 is more likely than not to result in global temperature rise between 2 °C and 3 °C according to the RCP page, so there is some contradiction there. We cannot cite other Wikipedia articles, so you need to copy that citation if you want to copy the information.

You're right that once the first red bit is supported, no citation is needed for the second. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I am shocked by the vastness of the original research. The colours of your justification are just confusing. I pity the reader trying to confirm the info they just read about climate change by following these sources. They'll never get there, because, (flogging a dead horse), the info is not in the sources. It has to be pieced together somehow by drawing conclusions from each of the refs and WP:synthesising the conclusion.

Also worth noting that it is polite not to continue using the same seriously disputed sourcing in multiple articles. - Roxy the dog 14:51, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Roxy, can you explain what you consider synthesizing exactly? The text follows the "cities of the future" website quite closely: By 2050, the climate of Fez will be most similar to that of current-day Mosul. The maximum temperature of the warmest month is likely to increase by 7.4°C, resulting in a mean annual temperature change of 2.7°C.. Only the coldest temperature comes from the SI, and falls squarely within WP:CALC. Which conclusion is synthesized? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. In fact, I would also note that the coldest month can also be found by simply opening the "Click here to open the full map" URL: I am just not sure if there's a good way to cite that, or even if it's actually necessary.

@Roxy the dogThe most absolutely important information absolutely is in the sources. Basically, the passages I have been adding consist of these statements of fact.

1. A paper published in 2019 comparing cities around the world and their present-day states with their 2050 states under a certain climate change scenario. This is verifiable by simply following the link to the first reference and doing nothing else.

2. According to that 2019 paper, [city in the article] would have the equivalent climate to [some other city], and undergo certain changes in annual and warmest/coldest month temperature. This is again verifiable by doing one of these two things: a) Looking at the first reference and noticing where it says "S2 Table. Summary statistics of the global analysis of city analogues." Once that table is downloaded, the information is in fact there. The other, much simpler way is to follow the second reference ("Cities of the future"): not only does it contain the information in a far more convenient interactive form, but the reference now also specifies the exact sub-page where the relevant interactive is found. "Current vs. future cities"

3. The scenario analyzed in the paper is the closest one to what will happen in the future. This is the only part where Femke is objecting to some of my current choices with regards to the sources, and the only part where the charge of "synthesizing" has any ground to stand on. This part is also not the focus of the section: strictly speaking, it can be removed and the main findings with regards to temperature changes will not be affected. However, it does provide important context that the findings of the paper do not simply represent a scenario of future climate change, but, for now, the scenario of that change. Hence, I'll try to improve the sourcing of that part as well, and I would appreciate more constructive input.

@Femke Would this reference work better? https://cosmosmagazine.com/earth/climate/explainer-ipcc-scenarios/

"The IPCC doesn’t make projections about which of these scenarios is more likely, but other researchers and modellers can. The Australian Academy of Science, for instance, released a report last year stating that our current emissions trajectory had us headed for a 3°C warmer world, roughly in line with the middle scenario. Climate Action Tracker predicts 2.5 to 2.9°C of warming based on current policies and action, with pledges and government agreements taking this to 2.1°C."

Perhaps this would be the best way to structure the section?

A 2019 paper on climate change published in PLOS One estimated that under Representative Concentration Pathway 4.5, the climate of Fez in the year 2050 would most closely resemble the current climate of Mosul in Iraq. The annual temperature would increase by 2.7 °C (4.9 °F), and the temperature of the warmest month by 7.4 °C (13.3 °F), while the temperature of the coldest month would increase by 2.3 °C (4.1 °F).[PLOS & Crownerlab reference] According to Climate Action Tracker, the current warming trajectory appears consistent with 2.7 °C (4.9 °F), which is believed to closely match RCP 4.5.[CAT & Cosmos reference].

As an aside, I would like to note that Mosul in particular is almost certainly the second-best known city in Iraq at this point, and one of the better-known Middle Eastern cities in general, purely due to the pivotal role it played in the rise and fall of Daesh. Around 2014-2016, it was almost impossible to have any interest in the world news and not have heard of it. However, it's true that most other cities of its size would not have been in the same position.

One more question with regards to this geographical matter: should we specify just the country, or the country and its administrative division? I am once again thinking that when it comes to the American cities, there's a persistent expectation to name their state (indeed, often just the state is mentioned), and once we get to cities whose analogues are in the US, it'l probably come up again. So, how often should the same courtesy be applied to non-US cities? InformationToKnowledge (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what the WP:Manual of Style says about US states, but in most countries their subdivisions are too small to matter really. Maybe China and Brazil are exceptions?

I'm not familiar with Cosmos. Don't see immediate red flags on reliability, but would be good to double check. In terms of phrasing "is believed" is a WP:WEASEL word we avoid in Wikipedia (because it's unclear who believes it). Best to find a sufficiently authorative source to just state it as fact.

As a way forward, you'll either need to convince Roxy, or find consensus with other editors on a prominent city talk page. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

There are many ways to approach dispute resolution on WP, but in this case, I'm not sure finding a prominent city and using that Talk page is the right one. The main reason I'm continuing here is that atm, it seems the logical place.

I had considered going to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard for comment, and still may, and there is a specific Dispute Resolution thingy too, and probably a centralised discussion venue for Climate Change. Think about it.

The issue is simply that each of the sources individually do not support your contentions, only when used to draw your own conclusions by WP:OR. I fail to see how the wallls of text above justify this. - Roxy the dog 17:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Have you actually looked at those sources at all since the past week? Like, seriously. All the numbers for the main claim are right there, and the only debate is about what amounts to an appendix. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Have the sources changed? I looked again when I saw that the edit-warring to include this synth had started, and I didn't see any changes there? - Roxy the dog 18:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Could one of you please link me to the section on Talk:sealevel rise where you sought advice? I cant see that either. I would be very grateful in the usual wiki way! Thanks. -Roxy the dog 18:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

So...you haven't actually looked at the supporting information table of the study, in spite of it being explicitly pointed out by the reference?

And again, did you go to the sub-page of the second reference titled "Cities of the future"? If you have, how did you fail to see the data? If you haven't, why not? InformationToKnowledge (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, we have a page on it. Cosmos (Australian magazine)

It would be mighty strange if a magazine run by a not-for-profit Royal Institution of Australia was nevertheless considered an unreliable source. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Did I say that anything was unreliable? - Roxy the dog 19:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

That was in response to a comment by Femke, not your comment (or at least, it was meant to be). At the same time, I'll grant that this talk page section is now bordering on unreadable. At this point, it would probably make more sense to start anew somewhere like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities, since this is clearly going nowhere right now (not helped by the way you only selectively reply to posts, at times ignoring questions which were directly addressed to you.)

@Femke I also just found out that, besides the Cosmos article, we could use the citation used in this template on several pages:

Shared Socioeconomic Pathways in the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report 

SSP	Scenario	Estimated warming (2041–2060)	Estimated warming (2081–2100)	Very likely range in °C (2081–2100)
SSP1-1.9	very low GHG emissions: CO2 emissions cut to net zero around 2050	1.6 °C	1.4 °C	1.0 – 1.8
SSP1-2.6	low GHG emissions: CO2 emissions cut to net zero around 2075	1.7 °C	1.8 °C	1.3 – 2.4
SSP2-4.5	intermediate GHG emissions: CO2 emissions around current levels until 2050, then falling but not reaching net zero by 2100	2.0 °C	2.7 °C	2.1 – 3.5
SSP3-7.0	high GHG emissions: CO2 emissions double by 2100	2.1 °C	3.6 °C	2.8 – 4.6
SSP5-8.5	very high GHG emissions: CO2 emissions triple by 2075	2.4 °C	4.4 °C	3.3 – 5.7

The IPCC Sixth report did not estimate the likelihoods of the scenarios but a 2020 commentary described SSP5–8.5 as highly unlikely, SSP3–7.0 as unlikely, and SSP2–4.5 as likely.

However, a report citing the above commentary shows that RCP8.5 is the best match to the cumulative emissions from 2005 to 2020.

(Not a fan of {{AR6_SSP_table}} itself, by the way, as I think this structure needlessly complicates updating that information: i.e. that whole aside about the disputing article from PNAS is so simplistic it only sheds heat rather than light, yet updating it without a direct link is a pain. Nevertheless, the citation itself is very clear: perhaps it could be combined into something like "Climate Action Tracker shows the current warming trajectory consistent with 2.7 °C (4.9 °F) by 2100 - this warming closely tracks RCP 4.5 according to other assessments. [Cosmos, Nature references].) I hope that "other assessments" is not WP:WEASEL here, since naming them specifically on an article which is not itself about climate change is likely going into superfluous detail and a violation of WP:WIKIVOICE. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 07:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I looked at the refs as I said. I'm not supposed to click around the website to find the info you are supposed to link to provide. - Roxy the dog 19:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

So if ITK provides the link to the specific section of the page (they already gave the title of the relevant section), would you be happy with the edit? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Gosh, way to side track a topic. I've asked for advice from FTN, those guys understand both climate change and sourcing requirements. - Roxy the dog 10:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Disambiguation link notification for January 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Extinction risk from climate change, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Excellent New Editor's Barnstar A new editor on the right path
		I hereby award this barnstar to editor InformationToKnowledge for excellent contributions to our climate change articles, esp. in regard to ecosystems. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

While I'd not completely disagree with critical feedback regarding WP:OR & the risk of making articles too long for most to read, I've noticed some outstanding improvements to several of our big scope articles. These take a lot of energy to perform in a holistic way that's a reasonable reflection of the voluminous mainstream science on these topics. We're lucky to have someone like yourself taking the time to do this. Thank you! FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing

Hello! I was just copy-editing the page on sea level rise. I noticed that you did some WP:close paraphrasing in this edit. Close paraphrasing from a source under copyright protection isn't allowed on Wikipedia. I was wondering if you could rephrase that, and evaluate if this was a one-off, or whether more text needs to be reworded to not be close to the source. Thanks! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware of close paraphrasing rules, but I was under impression that when many of the sources I cite are so technical, WP:LIMITED applied. Could you please quote the specific passage which you believe was too closely paraphrased?

Having looked at it in more detail, I'm less worried. If I had made the table beneath, I'd propably not have posted at all, as perfection is the enemy of the good. This will possibly still be a problem at WP:FAC, but it's only a few minor improvements that are needed. Limited applies to some extent. Terms like 'wetland restoration' can be used as if they are one word. If you don't want to go the FAC route, disregard my request to do further checking.

Caption

Source text	Your text	Note
Approximately 95 million Americans lived in coastal communities in 2017 (US Census Bureau, 2019) and in 2013, Canada had roughly 6.5 million coastal residents (Lemmen et al., 2016), while Mexico had 19 million people living in coastal municipalities in 2015 (Azuz-Adeath et al., 2018).	As of 2017, around 95 million Americans lived on the coast: for Canada and Mexico, this figure amounts to 6.5 million and 19 million people.	Perfectly paraphrased
By 2030, flooding from changes in storms, SLR (based on RCP8.5) and increases in built infrastructure in the US Gulf Coast may result in net economic losses of up to 176 billion USD, of which 50 billion USD could be avoided through implementation of nature-based measures including wetland and oyster reef restoration and other green infrastructure (see Box 14.4; Section 14.5.2; EPA, 2015b; Reguero et al., 2018	By 2030, flooding along the US Gulf Coast may result in economic losses of up to 176 billion USD: around 50 billion USD could be potentially avoided through nature-based solutions such as wetland restoration and oyster reef restoration.	Mostly okay, there is some minor further paraphrasing possible. "may result in". You could have said "may bring about" or "may cause". avoided -> prevented.
A projected SLR of 0.9 m by 2100 could place 4.2 million people at risk of inundation in US coastal counties, whereas a 1.8-m SLR exposes 13.1 million people (Hauer et al., 2016). In California, under an extreme 2-m SLR by 2100, 150 billion USD (2010) of property or more than 6% of the state’s GDP and 600,000 people could be affected by flooding (Barnard et al., 2019). A 1-m SLR would inundate 42% of the Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula in North Carolina and incur property losses of up to 14 billion USD (considering the 2016 USD value) (Bhattachan et al., 2018). In nine southeast US states, a 1-m SLR would result in the loss of more than 13,000 recorded historical and archaeological sites with over 1000 eligible for inclusion in the National Register for Historic Places (Anderson et al., 2017).	By 2100, sea level rise of 0.9 metres and 1.8 metres would threaten 4.2 and 13.1 million people in the US, respectively. In California alone, 2 metres of SLR could affect 600,000 people and threaten over 150 billion USD in property with inundation, potentially representing more than 6% of the state’s GDP. In North Carolina, a meter of SLR inundates 42% of the Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula, incurring losses of up to 14 billion USD (at 2016 value of the currency). In nine southeast US states, the same level of sea level rise would amount to the loss over 1000 sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register for Historic Places and up to 13,000 historical and archaeological sites overall.	There are a few places where there were more possibilities for paraphrasing. (1) more than 6% -> over 6%. (2) eligible -> qualify for (3) incur -> cause. Here, I am a bit worried sentence order as well, which is the same as in the source. You can remove some aspects (such as only portraying property loss in % of GDP), which will also make the text less number-heavy and more professional.

I also noticed that in one of your edit summaries, you said that you couldn't find the 17-83% numbers from a paper, and removed them. They are right beneath Figure 4 and Table 1 of that paper, respectively. I can see the argument that keeping them may be too much detail for an already long article, but those numbers are definitely backed up.

Other than that, though, I really like how the SLR article is looking now. Any chance it could be nominated for Featured? InformationToKnowledge (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

The 17-83% figures I only removed as too much detail / WP:make technical articles understandable. I couldn't find some other details in another edit, which again I mostly removed as too detailed. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:03, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Featured article nomination

It would be amazing if this article could be nominated for featured down the line! The featured article process does really delve into the nitty-gritty. It's fantastic for its demands on using the best sources, but it will also teach you the details of the WP:manual of style. You'll likely want to find a mentor for help at Wikipedia:Mentoring for FAC, and get the article copy-edited by the WP:Guild of copy-editors, and peer reviewed at WP:PR. The first things any mentor will notice is:

• The use of WP:summary style. The article is over 10,000 words long (10696), and contains some details that are not strictly necessary. This means that some people (including me) will not support. For me, the ideal length of an article like this is around 7,000-9,000 words, but I will not oppose if it's under 10,000 and I don't see how summary style can be applied better. WP:Article length is a controversial topic, so people think differently about this topic
• This links to the use of primary sources. It's likely people will want to see a bit of a shift towards secondary sourcing in the article, which are typically more summararized.
• And to the remove lower-quality reliable sources. For instance, I just removed: "Nonpartisan think tank Resources for the Future describes Miami as "the most vulnerable major coastal city in the world" to damages associated with storm-related coastal flooding and sea level rise" --> most people at FAC will balk at the use of a think tank. I'm don't think it's true if you weight the vulnerability in terms of humans rather than real estate.
• Source formatting. All sources need to be consistently formatted, and all the information must be complete. For instance, citation 6 (referring to the old TAR), has a lot of missing informations around authorship. You may want to replace it with a newer IPCC citation which are pre-formatted at Wikipedia:IPCC citation
• The Asia and NA sections are maybe disproportionally big. Europe seems to miss places that are not NL/Venice.
• Length of the lead: typically you'll want to stay under 600 words. Make sure there is no content unique to the lead. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, I have taken another look at the article, and was able to condense much of the original text of the NA and Adaptation sections (alongside further paraphrasing, as discussed above). However, I also found a lot more to add to the Adaptation section (alongside expanding Europe), so the net result is still an increase of about 150 words. I am sure that some of what I just wrote for Adaptation can be simplified, but I'm not sure where a reduction of ~800 words would come from. I'm also not sure just how much of the article could "shift" to secondary sources without losing really important information.

To be honest, though, while to have recognition through the FA process would be excellent, I'm less interested in that than I'm in simply removing/replacing outdated, incomplete and/or poorly sourced information about this entire subject. Consequently, I don't think I would go for mentoring and such until I can get more of the articles on climate change and biology/biosphere + geoengineering/CDR interventions up to date, at least. (And the "apocalypse" article replacement, obviously.)

I wonder what is your opinion on global dimming and extinction risk from climate change now? I have been editing both of them extensively, and I think they now warrant a quality reassessment, perhaps even to GA status. They used to be frighteningly out-of-date and haphazard (most of the references for global dimming were from 2005 or thereabouts) but now they should provide a very comprehensive and reasonably well-styled look at their topic. (Extinction risk article may be a bit number-heavy, but that goes with the territory.)

Lastly, Permafrost plus Solar geoengineering are the two articles which I think do not deserve GA yet, but may get to the point of being a candidate soon enough. Both are extensive and are covering an important topic, but are also more than a little uneven with their references and structure (SG may well be a WP:UNDUE/WP:NPOV case, even, with the obvious disparity between "Advantages" and "Limitations" in the current structure.) Some lesser articles probably deserver re-evaluation by now as well, but this isn't so exciting. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll give my opinion on the extinction risk article on the article talk page. Very cool that you're willing to bring them to GA level! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Please edit incrementally

Again, please stop making huge edits as you have recently done at Sea level rise. Huge edits make it a practical impossibility for other editors to gauge and respond to; some might be tempted to simply revert, to avoid the headache. For existing articles, incremental edits are more understandable, especially if accompanied by specific edit comments.Wikipedia is supposed to be collaborative, and your approach might even be called disruptive and a violation of WP:OWN. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree that smaller edits would make it much more easy to review. It's much easier to know for us what's going on if there are good WP:edit summaries. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Could you please reply to the above concern? this edit would have benefitted from more explanation for instance. It's really difficult to review (or even decide to review) such massive edits. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 12:14, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I mean, what can I say? Yes, I understand this concern, but it again has to be balanced against WP:NOW and plain practicality. The edits you are taking issue with have both involved changes to article's structure. For comparison, consider extinction risk from climate change, and the timeline structure it used to have. How could I have incrementally changed it from that to where it is now? Having some of the article as a timeline and some as a "per-kingdom" list would have been immmensely confusing for any reader who happened to stumble upon it in the middle of such incremental series of edits.

Once the structure is in a reasonable state, and there are no glaring omissions, then incremental approach is completely logical, and it is what I have been following with the articles I consider "stable" as well. I don't think incrementalism makes sense when the whole sections are effectively bare, as amongst the other things, one runs the risk of having to repeatedly overwrite one's own edits if you start adding to the skeletal section after seeing just one-two sources, rather then following up on citations which may well place the sources you have just seen in a very different context. I don't see how an edit history of 10 edits, some of them re-writing their immediate predecessors would be less confusing than what I am currently doing.

Having said that, I am trying to be more discrete with my edits, limiting them to a section at a time. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 07:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi InformationToKnowledge: I can related to both points of view, Femke for saying to edit incrementally but also yours for saying that when re-arranging the structure it needs to be made in one big bold move. I've had the same situation in the past for some articles that I worked on. Your explanation and approach for future edits sounds very reasonable to me (e.g. limiting to one section at the time). Just one point with regards to permafrost: it would be useful if you explained on the article's talk page what you are planning to do or what you have done. This would make it easier for others who are watching the page and reviewing edits to understand what your thought process was (rather than just relying on the short edit summaries).

As an aside, I saw the conversation about close paraphrasing on your talk page. It was good to see someone else struggle with this too and that you pointed out the WP:LIMITED aspect. You can see some discussions around my work (and failings) on my talk page and also in my WP:CCI talk page, e.g. here in this section. EMsmile (talk) 08:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Limiting them to one section at a time will be very useful :). One of the reasons it's difficult to review is software. The diff viewer can be a bit unclear. By doing restructuring and rewriting separate, that's mostly solved. If you have to make larger edits and the article has high views, is controversial or a GA, it's good practice to leave a talk page message instead, as EMsmile advised. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

InformationToKnowledge, limiting edits to one section is just a start. (Outside of starting new articles, and minor grammar/spelling changes...) My intent generally is to add no more than one sentence or one idea per edit, and include sourcing in that edit. Re-arranging content belongs in a separate edit. Each edit should have an edit summary that's meaningful to other editors. You'll get better collaborative results this way. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sea level rise, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page German.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Images in Permafrost?

Hi InformationToKnowledge, thanks for your commendable work on the Permafrost article. In following the provenance of some of the graphics that you added, I note that they came from articles in Nature. It's unclear that those graphics were originally published under the CC license. Perhaps you could put a note under the License section of each, explaining why this is so. CF: File:Ran 2022 QTP Permafrost damages 2050.png, File:Langer 2023 thawed pollution.png, and File:Langer 2023 alaska distributions.png. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

It's a good concern to have, but I don't think it's particularly unclear, as I have been careful to only include the graphics from the Communications family of Nature journals.

File:Ran 2022 QTP Permafrost damages 2050.png - Following the link to source figure itself (already included in the image description) tells you about its licenses.

Both Langer files - see "Rights and Permissions" section at the bottom of the paper. (Link already included in the description of both images as well.) InformationToKnowledge (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Thwaites Glacier

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Thwaites Glacier you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Thwaites Glacier

The article Thwaites Glacier you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Thwaites Glacier and Talk:Thwaites Glacier/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 16:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Thwaites Glacier

Hi -- just letting you know I posted a couple more issues at the GA review page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I know, I know - I just have GA review of another article going on as well. Will get back to both soon enough. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

No hurry; I'll check back with you in a week. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Effects of climate change on livestock has been accepted

Effects of climate change on livestock, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a fantastic rating for a new article, and places it among the top 3% of accepted submissions — major kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

123Writer ^talk 18:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Great news, congratulations, InformationToKnowledge! Going straight to B-class is indeed very good. EMsmile (talk) 12:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Weeks of effort have finally paid off. Getting a dozen notifications a day as it gradually shows up on more and more CC pages after you added it to the template is still a little surreal. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 19:49, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah yes, a side effect of having been added to the CC template. :-) It'll be interesting to see how the pageviews will develop and increase for this article. EMsmile (talk) 09:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

For your comprehensive article Effects of climate change on livestock! 123Writer talk 18:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Follow up to your livestock article

Under Heat stress is a citation page number missing a citation. Could you please add whichever citation it was? It's likely [2] but wanted to make sure, thanks!

In general, the preferred ambient temperature range for domestic animals is between 10 °C (50 °F) and 30 °C (86 °F).: 870 123Writer ^talk 21:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, it was! I did get the page number wrong, though.

Thanks for the brownie! InformationToKnowledge (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Thwaites GA

Hi -- I see you've responded at the GA. Would you have any objections if I moved your responses under the relevant bullet points? This is the sort of thing I mean. I find it a lot easier to keep track of what's been done if the question and response are next to each other. If you'd rather I didn't, that's fine; just let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. I'm still new to this and was replying in a bit of a hurry. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 06:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I've moved your replies, and will go through and respond later today. You might have a quick look and make sure I moved the replies to the right bullets, if you get a moment, but I'm pretty sure I got it right. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Thwaites Glacier

The article Thwaites Glacier you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Thwaites Glacier for comments about the article, and Talk:Thwaites Glacier/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 13:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Permafrost

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Permafrost you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Thwaites Glacier

On 10 September 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Thwaites Glacier, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Thwaites Glacier (pictured) in Antarctica is expected to add 65 cm (26 in) to global sea levels over the coming centuries? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Thwaites Glacier. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Thwaites Glacier), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Decline in wild mammal populations (September 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Nagol0929 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Decline in wild mammal populations and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Nagol0929 (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, InformationToKnowledge! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Nagol0929 (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Note that you can move drafts to mainspace directly. You don't have to go through AfC unless you have a conflict of interest, which obviously isn't the case here. See instructions at wp:move. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Permafrost

The article Permafrost you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Permafrost for comments about the article, and Talk:Permafrost/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Permafrost, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Substrate.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia

You did identify the source of the material in your edit, the Effects of climate change on agriculture. Copying within Wikipedia is acceptable but it must be attributed.

This type of edit does get picked up by Copy Patrol and a good edit summary helps to make sure we don't accidentally revert it. However, for future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, linking to the source article and adding the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved.

I've noticed that this guideline is not very well known, even among editors with tens of thousands of edits, so it isn't surprising that I point this out to some veteran editors, but there are some t's that need to be crossed.~~~~ S Philbrick(Talk) 19:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I do recall being told about this guideline about a year ago. Since then, I had only used transcripts or moved self-written content up until now, so the guideline slipped my mind.

In this case, there's a further complication, since the source page itself had all of this material moved from a smaller page that was merged into it last year. I linked to what appear to be two of the most important edits on the original page in a new edit summary, so I hope this settles the matter.

While you are here: would you mind getting involved over at social cost of carbon? There's an issue there with an editor adding dubious unreferenced (and even self-"referenced"!) content for a while, and it going undetected for far too long. See its talk page and history. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 09:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

About the social cost of carbon, this looks very painful to me... Reminds me of the hassles we recently had with a new editor at climate system, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climate_system#Why_is_my_edit_not_published?. In the end, Femke started an WP:ANI which led to that user being blocked, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1139#User%3ASidney_Oldberg_not_here . Something to consider. EMsmile (talk) 09:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Contextless numbers as reference names?

I don't understand this comment of yours in the edit summary of effects of climate change on agriculture: "Please don't use contextless numbers as reference names! That might save a few seconds when editing, but makes for a total pain to figure out how reliable or how up-to-date that reference is for anyone else editing after the fact." I didn't actively "add" that number but I replaced a second reference to FAO with the first ref to FAO which was already in the article (so that the FAO ref only shows up once in the ref list, not twice). I used the Cite >> Reuse function. I don't see how this make it difficult for future editors? The only problem I see is when copying such a textblock from one article to another. But even then it's easy to fix later. Do you edit in source edit mode? I edit in visual edit mode, mostly, so that issue of ref names doesn't really come to the forefront of my mind as I don't get to see it in visual edit mode.EMsmile (talk) 15:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I use the source mode. It seems like that visual mode tool always make reference names look like ":1" or some other number? My issue with that is the complete lack of dating: when an important statement is cited to ":1", ":2", ":3" and you have no idea if those numbers are from 2000s or from 2020s. I wonder if the tool can be made to automatically insert year (and perhaps the first surname found) from the citation, if available? InformationToKnowledge (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

It's a known issue, which often comes up high on the m:Community Wishlist Survey. If you find it annoying, you should be able to participate in January again to put it higher on the development priorities list. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@InformationToKnowledge: but you can easily see the year of the ref in the reference list (when you view the article in normal reading mode), so I still don't "get" in which sense it's a problem? Or is it that you only look at the section in isolation in source editor mode? If you look at the whole article together, then the year of the reference is clear. - Yes, the visual model took allocates the numbers for refs automatically - I usually don't re-check or change them unless there is a very particular reason, like a text block that was moved from one article to another and both have a ref called ":1" but it's to a different publication. Anyway, at least you now know where these "contextless numbers" come from. :-) EMsmile (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Environmental Barnstar
		I have seen so much excellent work from you. It's great to have you here! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Permafrost

On 21 October 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Permafrost, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that there are at least 13,000 sites containing toxic materials that are frozen in permafrost, many of which are expected to start thawing and releasing their pollutants in the near future? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Permafrost. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Permafrost), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Pathogenic microorganisms in frozen environments

On 26 October 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pathogenic microorganisms in frozen environments, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that ancient permafrost can preserve viable microorganisms, some of which contain antibiotic-resistance genes that may be transferred to modern bacteria? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pathogenic microorganisms in frozen environments. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Pathogenic microorganisms in frozen environments), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Global dimming

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Global dimming you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Clayoquot -- Clayoquot (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

~ ~ ~ Merry Christmas! ~ ~ ~

Hello InformationToKnowledge: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 11:46, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Southern Ocean overturning circulation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dilution.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

March 2024 GAN backlog drive

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Greenland ice sheet

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Greenland ice sheet you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Greenland ice sheet

The article Greenland ice sheet you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Greenland ice sheet for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 17:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Sfn/Harv no-target error in Causes of climate change

Hello, @InformationToKnowledge. A recent contribution to Causes of climate change has lead to sfn/harv no-target error due to missing work in the Sources section of the article. The current are missing: "World Resources Institute, 8 December 2019", "IPCC SRCCL Ch2 2019", "IPCC SRCCL Summary for Policymaker 2019", "Climate.gov 23 June 2022", "Olivier & Peters 2019", "Our World in Date, 18 September 2020", "Kvande 2014", "EPA 2020", "EPA 2019", "Davidson 2019", "Global Methane Initative 2020", "IPCC AR6 WG1 Technical Summary 2021", "Melillo, Frey, De Angelis, Werner 2017" (Listed as "Melilo et al. 2017"), "IPCC AR5 WG1 2013", "Wolff, Shepherd, Shuckburgh, Watson 2015" (Shown as "Wolff et al. 2015"), "NASA, 28 May 2013", "Turetsky, Abott, Jones, Anthony 2019" (Shown as "Turetsky et al. 2019"), "Dean, Middleburg, Rockmann, Aerts 2018" (Shown as "Dean et al. 2018"), "He, Wang, Zhou, Wild, 2018" (Shown as "He et al. 2018"), "Storelvmo, Philips, Lohmann, Leirvik 2016" (Shown as "Storelvmo et al. 2016), "Wild, Gilgen, Roesch, Ohmura 2005" (Shown as "Wild et al. 2005"), "Albrecht 1989", "National Academies 2008", "Ramanathan & Carmichael 2008", "RIVM 2016", "WMO 2021", "The Sustainability Consortium, 13 September 2018", "UN FAO 2016", "IPCC AR4 WG1 Ch9 2007", "Randel, Shine, Austin, Barnett 2009" (Shown as "Randel et al. 2009"). Please add them to ensure verifiability of the sources. Thank you, Thecowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 01:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

This has now been fixed. EMsmile (talk) 07:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 13:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Please edit incrementally

Hi. You recently edited Ice and claim to have added 30 refs. It is not practical to review such a large change. Please make more focused and incremental changes. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CMIP.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Commons

Hi ItK,

may you please be so kind to other language versions of Wikipedia to upload your images directly to Commons?

Thank you in advance!-- Tadarrius Bean (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Phases of ice, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page HCL.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)