Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climate change

Add topic
Active discussions
MainParticipantsPopular pagesResourcesGet started with easy editsTalk

Africa task forceAgriculture task forceClimate justice task forceBiodiversity task force

WikiProject Climate change (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
NA This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our style guide


I have nominated Antarctica for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. — Chidgk1 (talk 9 January 2022

Possible/advisable to suggest articles to student editors?Edit

Hello Ian (Wiki Ed) and anyone else interested,

I just noticed which looks great. Especially pleased because students have not blundered into any FA articles (presumably from your advice) and that one student has selected Climate finance, as I think we are weak on economics.

I have a few questions:

1) I noticed the above by chance. Is it possible in future for this project to be notified (perhaps automatically on this talk page) when obviously climate change related courses are created?

2) Is it possible/advisable for us to suggest articles for students to work on? If not could they at least be advised to ask here if unsure? With the IPCC AR 6 report recently come out there is probably quite a lot that editors here could use help on.

3) If I understand right the students have been asked to edit existing articles rather than create new ones - which is maybe sensible as creating a new article is tough for new editors. However they seem to be following a (very good) guide which is about "Writing a Wikipedia article, from start to finish". I am a bit concerned they might write 5000 word drafts, stick the whole thing in an existing article and get discouraged if another editor reverts. Still maybe they have been reminded of the section at the top of page 13 so maybe will be ok.

4) If the students were asked to create completely new articles then selecting a topic would be more difficult, but we might be able to suggest some. For example articles about climate change in countries not yet covered on Wikipedia. However unless the student was from that country it might be hard for them to find sources.

Good luck with the course

Chidgk1 (talk) 07:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Excellent points, User:Chidgk1. One type of climate change articles which I think is nearly perfect for student editors to get involved in is the suite of climate change in country X articles. They can either improve existing ones or set up new ones, following the structure that we have developed (here). I think it's easy to do for them, teaches them about Wikipedia editing and is useful for other readers. EMsmile (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
(1) I don't think automatic notification would work given the way things are currently set up, but I can talk to Sage about possibly doing something like that in the future. I could probably do it manually, though completeness will depend on my remembering to do so. Worth a shot though.
(2) That's an interesting idea. While some instructors have specific ideas about what they want their students to work on, a lot appreciate help finding good candidate articles. I think that if people could suggest a list of articles or areas, we could direct instructors and students towards that page. A "education corner" or something? I will talk to my colleagues about that.
(3) Most student editors (somewhere around 90%) work on existing articles, but it varies a lot from class to class. The brochure is more of a supportive reference (which needs updating); the main process relies on these training modules. For this class in particular you can see the series of steps on the class timeline. We do try to discourage students from dumping everything in in one big edit (see this slide in particular) to avoid the big edit-big revert problem.
(4) I agree that creating articles on "climate change in [country]" is probably the best area for new article creation. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Here are current classes that are tagged with "Environmental science" (so not necessarily climate change, but more likely to have students editing there
Not yet active
One more class that's taking an interest in climate change articles: [[wikiedudashboard:courses/York_University/Applied_Plant_Ecology_Winter_2022_(Winter). Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes pretty bold to go for the politics article! If they struggle let us know if we can help Chidgk1 (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Off topic for climate change but I just created 2022 Kunming Biodiversity Conference if the student on politics wants something easier. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
In addition to country articles, perhaps there is a way to make a list of low-hanging fruit (there is a to-do list, but that's not all easy). In addition to the country articles (which should be quite simple to develop based on existing templates), we're missing an article on Climate change and shipping, which there are many sources for. Happily, if the aim is to edit existing articles, relevant information can be added to the quite poor Environmental effects of shipping (room for non-climate change related content too). I suspect Avoid-Shift-Improve could be improved without too much hassle, and it's a bit cross-cutting if there is a class that isn't mostly climate change. Climate change and fisheries has many cn tags that shouldn't be too difficult, as well as huge room for expansion (probably even from the existing references). Chidgk1 has been working on some more specific country articles, perhaps they can advise if there is an easy topic. CMD (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Not worth making a list if they are not interested in our suggestions - lets see if they take up my first one Chidgk1 (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
At Uppsala University in Sweden we have since 2017 edited articles on English Wikipedia within the course Ecological Effects of Climate Changes The following articles have been heavily expanded. 2017: Climate change in Norway, Climate change in Sweden, Biofuel in Sweden, Biofuel in Denmark; 2018: Biofuel in the European Union, Solar power in Italy, Biofuel in Australia, Climate of Svalbard; 2019: Mire, Socio-hydrology, Mitigation of global warming in Australia, Adaptation to global warming in Australia, Climate change in Australia; 2020: Climate change and invasive species, Grassland, Meadow, Palsa, Pingo; 2021: Paludiculture, Climate change in the Arctic, Climate change in Russia, Climate change in France, NDCs to Climate change in Country X articles.
This year we intend to continue with articles in the Climate change in Country X category. We are focusing on countries in Europe and will this time start from scratch for some countries. However, we also welcome suggestions of other articles to work on, but please first see how much work we expect from our students so you have an idea whether your suggestion is within that ball park (check for example On Monday, 4th of April, we have our first meeting with the students and after that I will update here on which pages that have been selected for this year. Olle Terenius (UU) (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
The articles selected were Climate change in Austria, Climate change in Antarctica and Climate Change in Italy (new page). We may have one group of students editing something, but that will be determined later. Olle Terenius (UU) (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Great. If your students have any difficulty with the Italy article let me know as I wrote quite a lot of Climate change in Turkey - but I may steal some of their Mediterranean sources! Chidgk1 (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Now the article Climate change in Austria has been updated and Climate Change in Italy has been created. Please take a look and comment/edit as you wish. I will meet with the students again tomorrow (in 24 hours from now) and any reaction from the community will be part of their presentation. Olle Terenius (UU) (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Now also the article Climate change in Antarctica has been updated. Please take a look and comment/edit as you wish. Olle Terenius (UU) (talk) 09:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Thoughts on climate change and ecosystems - again an overlapping articleEdit

Some sections of the article climate change and ecosystems overlap a lot with effects of climate change and its sub-articles. E.g. the whole section on oceans overlaps 100% with effects of climate change on oceans. I suggest to rename this article to effects of climate change on ecosystems and then to rework it to reduce overlap with the other articles in the suite of "effects of climate change on...". Does that sound right? Please provide your thoughts here or on the talk page of the article: EMsmile (talk) 08:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

update: this article has now been changed to effects of climate change on ecosystems but still needs further work to reduce overlap. I am wondering if we should also change these (@User:Sadads)?
Our category on "effects of climate change" currently looks like this: EMsmile (talk) 22:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinions about the titles, I have yet to see evidence that either of the naming conventions helps with Google or reader results in one way or another -- I think @EMsmile naming is mostly a matter of concern for Wikipedians and if it covers the scope identified by academics. Sadads (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
I prefer the shorter titles. "Effects of" is clearly implied. Femke (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
@Sadads: It's not so much the Google searches that I have in mind. It's more to make it clearer to other editors (in particular student editors) what should be the focus of the article. I find that students these days add a lot of stuff to climate change sub-sub-articles but often it doesn't fit all that well. I dread a situation where we get loads and loads of small sub-articles which are all called "climate change and..." (could be "climate change and pets", "climate change and wildfires", "climate change and flowers") which the experienced Wikipedians later have to mop up, merge, update. If we call these articles rather "effects of climate change on..." it's much clearer what they are for. I noticed that also for the article that used to be called "climate change and agriculture". It was quite a mess until we split it into greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture and effects of climate change on agriculture. If the article is just "CC and XX " it is not always clear if we are talking about effects of CC on XX or if we're talking about the impacts of XX on climate change (like you can see from the agriculture example). EMsmile (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Using "According to IPCC this will happen" - yes or no or whenEdit

There was an important discussion on the talk page of the climate change article which has already been archived by now but which I felt was very important. It was started by Femkemilene, see here: . I think it was archived prematurely. I'd like to distill from the discussion a recommendation which I'd like to place on the WikiProject CC page as guidance. Perhaps something like We recommend that you use wording in Wikipedia CC articles such as "According to IPCC this (XX) has happened... " only sparingly (maybe just once or twice, and not in the lead) as we can present these things as fact; otherwise they might sound like opinion (especially for those people who don't know what IPCC is; more common than we might like to believe. I'll copy the old discussion here below, hope that is OK (if not, someone could delete it): EMsmile (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I can't think of reasons to say "according to the IPCC..." when we're talking about something that has already happened. When we're talking about predictions for the future, it depends on the type of prediction. If they state it as a fact, like "sea levels will continue to rise", then in-text attribution is not appropriate. There are things the IPCC says that are more like opinions and should be attributed, e.g. "The IPCC estimates that 2.5% of world gross domestic product (GDP) would need to be invested in the energy system each year between 2016 and 2035 to limit global warming to 1.5 °C". Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Old discussion copied here for reference

Explicitly mentioning the IPCC reportEdit

This article, and quite a few other articles, often attribute statements to IPCC reports in-text. I think we should stop doing that for two reasons

  • It's stating Facts as opinion; these statements are frequently uncontroversial among experts
  • The reports have really long names, and the IPCC as well. As such, your sentences become unwieldy. Femke (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Hmm, I am not really sure about this. I attributed statements to the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report in several instances in my edits today because I thought it's an authoritative report where people would clearly see this as an unbiased, important source (rather than e.g. a singular study in an obscure journal, or a newspaper article). I am not clear on your "facts as opinion" issue? Are you saying that some people would equate an IPCC report with an opinion piece? Also, some of the articles where I added it hadn't even mentioned the sixth report once so far which I felt was a flaw. The name of the report could be shortened if needed (I don't think it's too unwieldy). In any case, I think it's useful to mention the year (2021) because in many paragraphs, the other information mentions the year as well, e.g. "a study from 2009 found that...". With the 2021 year it's clear that the data is very recent. Or is it better not to mention the year? EMsmile (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Sentences like "According to the IPCC, X happened" are problematic. Many readesr will be unfamiliar with how authoritative the IPCC is, and read this like "According to some people, X happened, but other experts may disagree". They should read "X happened".
Other mentions may distract from talking about substance. The 'on land' section is particularly poorly introduced. We need to wait till the fourth sentence before we reach something of substance. Sentences like: The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (2021) stated that the sensitivity to warming of the "1981–2010 Northern hemisphere snow cover extent" is about minus 1.9 million km2 per degrees Celsius throughout the snow season" are unnecessary complicated, and feel slightly biased to me. Would any expert disagree with this statement? If not, don't mention the specific expert (group). Femke (talk) 21:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Oh, I hadn't thought of it that way. I would have thought that the general public knows that the IPCC reports are THE most reliable source of information (or if they don't know it yet we should help them find out). Is there evidence that this is not so? If so, that's disappointing. I would similarly sometimes write in other contexts "WHO have published information about..." thinking that it makes the statement more powerful as WHO should be trustworthy. If that is not the case, then hmmmm... Would you say that the IPCC report should ideally not be mentioned in an article at all, or only once or twice? E.g. the article Retreat of glaciers since 1850 hadn't mentioned the 6th IPCC report at all until I included it today (it did mention earlier IPCC reports though). EMsmile (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
I have never seen the need to mention it. There are some cases where it may be useful to mention IPCC + year - report. We're citing the report already, so mentioning it in the text would be a bit duplicate.
For instance, in retreat of glaciers, I would definitely not mention it in the first paragraph of the lede, but I wouldn't mind it too much if it is mentioned further in the body in the context of projections. Femke (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) I agree with Femke on this issue. Scientists know the IPCC is authoritative, even re predictions; however, many lay readers might interpret the phrase, "the IPCC stated...", as being just one more opinion. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Some Presidents and Prime Ministers know and some don't! Chidgk1 (talk) 12:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I remember there is a similar issue at African humid period regarding IPCC reports. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
So how do we avoid then that lots of sentence that talk about the future will be in passive voice? Like: "It has been predicted that in 2030 xxx will occur." When I read a sentence like that I ask myself: who has predicted that and when was the prediction made? I think the average reader will not click on the little raised number in square brackets at the end of the sentence (I never did before I became a Wikipedia editor). I think for future predictions it would be better to say in the sentence who has predicted it an when. And surely IPCC reports are fairly obvious for the general public to be reliable sources (but perhaps mine is a minority view here). We can't really state something as a fact that is a prediction. I mean yes the prediction is a fact but not the thing itself. So we can't really say "sea level will rise by xx cm by 2030" but "it has been predicted that... ". Right? EMsmile (talk) 11:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Maybe "the best prediction is that ......" or "the best 2021 prediction is that ...."? Chidgk1 (talk) 12:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
In the Africa example that User:Jo-Jo Eumerus mentioned, it says in the article: "The Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C and the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report indicate that global warming will likely result in increased precipitation across most of East Africa, parts of Central Africa and the principal wet season of West Africa, although there is significant uncertainty related to these projections especially for West Africa." I couldn't see a discussion about it on the talk pages. EMsmile (talk) 11:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Suggest don't name it in leads. Not sure if the name of the report should be mentioned in the main text or not but if it is then for the first mention it could be described very briefly e.g. BBC say "a major UN scientific report" - Royal Geographical Society "the most up-to-date physical understanding of our climate system and climate change" - Carbon Brief "landmark assessment report" etc Chidgk1 (talk) 12:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Sounds good to me but could someone argue that "how do you prove that this is a landmark report?", "who says that it's a major report?". Could someone argue that we are introducing some sort of bias or subjectivity with such wording? If not, then I think it would be great to do that, and to educate the general public about the importance of the IPCC reports. EMsmile (talk) 12:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Article that may be of interest to members of this WikiProjectEdit

Recently, the National Security Archive published a post, citing many declassified documents, entitled "Climate Change and the Military: Examining the Pentagon’s Integration of National Security Interests and Environmental Goals under Clinton". I thought it might be of interest to members of this WikiProject, especially those editing pages about climate change policy, or even the U.S. military. --Historyday01 (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Hot dry rock geothermal energyEdit

  An article that you have been involved in editing—Hot dry rock geothermal energy—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

A user added the same content about "China slave labour" for solar panels into several energy articlesEdit

I've just realised that a user (User:Boundarylayer) recently added the same textblock to a range of articles on energy topics, please see here: I find it very suspicious (and plain wrong) if the same text blocks are added to several articles. To me it smacks of WP:OR and WP:NPV. I've just removed it from renewable energy and want to also remove it from climate change mitigation and all the others. However, am I right? Perhaps a shortened version of the content could be added to one of the articles but not to all of them? EMsmile (talk) 10:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to suggest removing it from all of them. There may be some reasonable content here, if rewritten with better grammar and style, but only in one place, not haphazardly as long captions that are not directly relevant in each location. Reywas92Talk 15:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
User has been adding problematic WP:OR that lacks WP:NPV across Wiki for a couple of weeks now (see editing summaries here or here). I've removed information where I can without engaging in harassment, as user has already attacked me in diffs and on article talk pages, and engaging has only made things worse.--Hobomok (talk) 15:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Repeating my statement here: the content was poorly-sourced (WP:CITEKILL and blogs), not always on-topic, and not that understandable to our audience. I agree with reverting it on all of these articles. If boundarylayer wants to include something about forced labour, I'm keen to see a high-quality overview source, and discuss the inclusion on one talk page. Femke (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I only learned about this issue as a result of this editor's activity, and although I'm working on other things, I'm eager to later learn learn more about this. For starters, it can not be easily dismissed when there are sources like US State Dept[1] reporting on forced labor in these camps.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


It's not a question whether slave labour exists in the energy sector, it's a question of finding out whether it's due, whether it's unique to solar and whether it actually affects prices (torture and genocide also costs money). None of those sources could be used to answer this. Femke (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
I haven't looked at BL's specific sourcing, but on the general idea that true cost comparisons must cast a systems-ecology net over the whole "kit and kaboodle" I agree! I'm also privately dubious that any one assessment has sufficient scope of vision to really do that, but I've got an open mind about that. Besides, killing off the biosphere really costs money! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
The authorative cost comparisons for LCOE are quite similar, which is the metric now discussed. The metrics which include the power system more broadly (including storage), are still converging. Even broader metrics are .. difficult.
Anyway, I've think I've reverted this change on all articles now, given the strong consensus against the current text. Always open for discussion with higher-quality sourcing. Femke (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
That really is some take, "slavery and genocide also costs money"....Wow. It is more than well WP:DUE with the linked US and German solar industries repeatedly bankrupted over it. The major one, explicitly stating they can't compete because china don't pay wages "slave labor". If you so much as cared to look at the references. Rather than this derangedly hand-waving it away.
If not notable for slaves to you all(can't believe I'm literally writing this but some wikipedian groups never cease to "amaze")but notable for the fact it has decimated all western solar, the actual drivers of innovation. Now are you interested?
Another thing, having knitting circle discussions like this without a friendly notifying of the editor, to join, is known as WP:CANVASSING. There are now 2 discussions about this material now being wholly vandalized and disappeared, one on the "renewable energy" page and one here that was intended to remain clearly a secret WP:Cabal.
For I was only to find out about your slavery disappearing circle, from looking at Femke's edit history, after their weird "not discretionary sanctions" template being added to my page. None of you notified me about this! With this the second time in recent weeks Hobomok has engaged with this, on User:GreenC page. Sending disturbing backroom emails about, yours truly.
Boundarylayer (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

That special interest wikipedia groups can't disappear evidence of massed slavery supporting their special interest Boundarylayer (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

You were pinged into the discussion by User:EMsmile, so you should have been informed. That said, the initial note could have been written more neutrally. Femke (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, I've seen plenty of coverage of the current Commerce Dept investigation into: "The tumult is the result of a decision by the Commerce Department to investigate whether Chinese companies are circumventing U.S. tariffs by moving components for solar panels through four Southeast Asian countries."[1] but most of the articles are rather sparse on info about the reasoning behind the tariffs and whether these tariffs/trade investigation is/are connected with the forced labor import ban from Biden in 2021: [2] or not. ---Avatar317(talk) 05:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC) (oh yeah, I found this discussion by the link on a revert on Economics of nuclear power plants, just in case people were wondering.)---Avatar317(talk) 05:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Update: the user in question has now been blocked. I've undone some of their recent edits where the user had added the same text to the caption of the image below. I'll start a separate discussion on that image below. I noticed that the user who is now blocked had done quite a bit of work on the nuclear power article in the past. I don't have enough knowledge or bandwidth regarding the nuclear power article but I would recommend that anyone who has an interest in that article takes a closer look at those earlier edits just to check if there were any WP:NPV issues there. EMsmile (talk) 11:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Gee, when someone says PV solar is uneconomical compared to nuclear power [3] and then says choosing allegedly "uneconomical" and "intermittent" alternatives (like solar) over nuclear makes one an "accessory to murder", [4] why would we ever worry about possible POV problems at nuclear power? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Link to the ANI discussion for those interested: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing by User:boundarylayer. SWinxy (talk) 00:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
FYI, Boundarylayer is indefinitely blocke and talk page access revoked, so in my view there is little reason to add anything to the ANI at this point. Your milage may vary NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:31, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Climate change content into natural hazard and natural disaster?Edit

I can't really get my head around the two articles natural hazard and natural disaster and if/how we can mention climate change effects there. E.g. both articles talk about wildfires, hurricanes, heatwaves and droughts but without saying much about the effects of climate change. One could argue that that kind of content is available in the respective sub-articles, i.e. within wildfire. Still, I find the current setup not satisfactory. There is also a half-baked discussion about merging the two or re-focusing them as the distinction between natural hazard and natural disaster is unclear and they overlap a lot. The hate note at "natural disaster" says "This article is about natural disasters. For the natural hazards that might lead to disasters, see Natural hazard." but I don't think this works consistently. EMsmile (talk) 11:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not planning on helping there, but FWIW, when I'm doing outdoor education I teach people to recognize "natural hazards" all the time. Those are potential problems, given the time and place and context. When we go ski mountaineering, we must watch for likely avalanche paths and conditions, and make a plan to deal with those "natural hazards". If an avalanche in the backcountry kills me, that "natural hazard" has produced an event that will ruin my day, but its just me and its not a "disaster". If the same slide instead wipes a crowded resort off the map, that's a disaster. The TOC of hazards article is virtually a perfect subset of the disasters article, and they should obviously be merged, in my opinion. As for climate change, I'd get the merge done first and then take a crack at that. But that's just my two cents, hope it helps NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
PS Comparison definitions of the two phrases can be found in the last paragraph of this US FEMA webpage. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, that's very useful. I think this is a good way forward: The TOC of hazards article is virtually a perfect subset of the disasters article, and they should obviously be merged, in my opinion.. EMsmile (talk) 09:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Limits to GrowthEdit

There is a debate in progress at talk:Limits to Growth that members of this WP may be able to contribute to or advise on. At time of writing, the relevant sections are the last five. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman It appears BL has been blocked, Sadads (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks but an appeal may succeed. I am not asking for anyone to take sides, but rather to look at how criticism can be represented fairly. Editors in this WikiProject probably have a lot more experience of conflict resolution between diametrically opposed perspectives in this field and I had hoped might be able to help move towards equitable resolution. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Image: Learning curves for electricity pricesEdit

De-cluttered Version 2 uploaded 10 June 2022.

The image on the right had been added to several articles (pinging also User:PJ Geest who added the image to Wikimedia Commons). The discussion above started from the additional text that had been added to the caption by User:Boundarylayer. I noticed also a discussion about it on the talk page of the nuclear power article here. I am just wondering if it's justified that this image is used in the following articles and if its presence should perhaps be reduced:

I am not sure if there is a guideline on not using the same image on too may articles (perhaps there isn't). If it's a great important image then sure. But with this graph from Our World in Data I am just not so sure how prominent it should become. EMsmile (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I find it a bit strange that Our World in Data is using the 155 USD/MWh cost estimate for nuclear power by Lazard. They could have used the International Energy Agency median estimate for nuclear power: 69 USD/MWh [5]. This difference highlights the huge uncertainties in cost estimates and makes all cost comparisons between energy forms dubious. --TuomoS (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm curious why, as TuomoS points out above, the IEA and Lazard estimates for nuclear are so different. To answer your question, I think this graph is fine for what it's intended to show, which is the effect of learning on LCOE over time. Problems with neutrality and verifiability arise when it's presented to support statements like "electricity from technology x is cheaper than electricity from technology y". LCOE by itself is a very imperfect indicator of overall cost and feasibility. Cost and feasibility vary enormously by location. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Should the graph really appear in 6 Wikipedia articles though? If so, then perhaps its caption needs to be clarified so indicate those uncertainties. I think we don't need it at climate change mitigation for starters. EMsmile (talk) 09:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
I think that's a question that would be better addressed for each article on a case-by-case basis. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
There are two values for nuclear reported in the literature. New-built (expensive) and LTO/long-term operation (renovating existing nuclear). The latter is what the linked IEA page reports, hence the lower price. While LCOE is imperfect for various reasons, the major trends don't differ much between the authoritative sources. I've seen Lazard cited in high-quality scientific papers, so I don't think there is that much wrong with it. If OWID uses it, I trust it even more.
The figure is the single most important figure about climate change mitigation imo. Six articles seems on the low side (don't know if we have the same information in other graphs). Can be added to variable renewable energy, and probs quite a few more. Femke (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
The IEA page reports two values for the cost of nuclear: 69 USD/MWh for new reactors, and 32 USD/MWh for long-term operation of existing reactors. --TuomoS (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Keeping existing ones going means not having to replace their existing KW output with something else for now, and if there's no oopsies at these places that would be nice, but there is a theoretical max KW output of extant nuke plants so once we extend their service lives, this particular approach will have been exhausted. And even if we do 100% of that, there will be an awful lot of decarbonizing left to do with other approaches. Everyone here gets these nuances, I'm sure. I was just thinking wherever we talk about extending service life of these things it would help to find RS ways of including these points, if we (meaning you) haven't already done this. Thanks for your work, whoever is adding these things to articles NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
TuomoS, my mistake. I can't quite figure out the difference. IEA gives the value for N-of-a-kind, which means there is some learning assumed (many Western countries have not built a nuclear reactor for a while, so this makes it less realistic for those countries). It also assumes quite a high capacity factor (85%), which may be unrealistic in countries with a higher VRE share (f.i. France has a 78% capacity factor). BNEF estimates are more in line with Lazard (not sure if open access exists for this data), so I think Lazard's estimates cannot be discarded, and the figure is not a clear NPOV violation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Femkemeline (talkcontribs)
Just an observation... the caption at least on article (Economics of nuclear power plants)describes this as the "Levelized cost of energy..." but the article Levelized cost of energy does not include this image. Either we should use one from that article (if its better) or add this image to that article, or check the captions to delink that article. I haven't studied the content of the image and have no opinion how to proceed on the questions raised here.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Pinging apparent developer @PJ Geest: I like the general idea behind this graphic, but prior posts at Renewable energy and most other destinations made the image superlarge at upright=2 in an apparent attempt to make it more readable. However, it's still hard to read—even in its enlarged state, and even after clicking on it to make it full-screen. Based on many group discussions at Talk:Climate change, my opinion is that the image itself should have text removed so the remaining text can be enlarged. If needed details can be provided in footnotes or on the Commons file description page. (Many captions were also superbloated.) —RCraig09 (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
The decline in price of renewables compared to other sources is a very important feature of the renewable energy transition, so personally I don't think the presence in 6 articles is too much. Our World In Data is a reliable source. In some cases, for starter articles (like for example climate change mitigation the graph can maybe be replaced by the graph "Price-of-electricity-new-renewables-vs-new-fossil-no-geo" on the right (?), which is a bit easier to read. Removing the text from the graph so the remaining text is larger is a good idea. You can even try to enlarge the remaining text like is done on the graph about the German energy transition at the bottom. --PJ Geest (talk) 15:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
I've de-cluttered File:3-Learning-curves-for-electricity-prices.png (beginning of section) and uploaded as Version 2 on Commons. I'm hesitant to do more with the other graphics (like File:Price-of-electricity-new-renewables-vs-new-fossil-no-geo.png) because it's more outdated than other graphics at, for example, Renewable energy#Growth of renewables. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

The caption used for this graphEdit

If the graph is very important and needs to be in those six articles then I still wonder if the caption of the graph is not equally important and that we should get it quite right. Rather than discussing the caption on the individual talk pages, I think it's more efficient to look at them together here. Given some of those extra explanations that were discussed above, should these explanations/notes go into the caption of the graph or should they go into a relevant sub-article and that article be wikilinked? Like this in the caption maybe: "more information available at LCOE" or something like that? This is how the captions of this graph appear in the different articles that use it (note I am not saying the caption ought to be the same in each of the articles but by comparing them we might discover weaknesses of the caption texts more easily):

  • Text of caption in the climate change mitigation article (no wikilinks at all): "A comparison of prices over time for energy from nuclear fission and from other sources. Over the presented time, thousands of wind turbines and similar were built on assembly lines in mass production resulting in an economy of scale."
  • Text of caption in the nuclear energy article (this is the longest one): "A comparison of prices over time for energy from nuclear fission and from other sources. Over the presented time, thousands of wind turbines and similar were built on assembly lines in mass production resulting in an economy of scale. While nuclear remains bespoke, many first of their kind facilities added in the timeframe indicated and none are in serial production. Our World in Data notes that this cost is the global average, while the 2 projects that drove nuclear pricing upwards were in the US. The organization recognises that the median cost of the most exported and produced nuclear energy facility in the 2010s the South Korean APR1400, remained "constant", including in export.[1]LCOE is a measure of the average net present cost of electricity generation for a generating plant over its lifetime. As a metric, it remains controversial as the lifespan of units are not independent but manufacturer projections, not a demonstrated longevity."
  • Text of caption in the renewable energy article: "A comparison of prices over time for energy from wind, solar and other sources. Over the presented time, thousands of wind turbines and similar were built on assembly lines in mass production resulting in learning curves and economies of scale.[2]"
  • Text of caption in the Economics of nuclear power plants article: "Levelized cost of energy based on different studies. Electricity from renewables became cheaper while electricity from new nuclear plants became more expensive."
  • Text of caption in the Cost of electricity by source article (no wikilinks at all): "Levelized cost of energy based on different studies. Source: IRENA 2020 for renewables, Lazard for the price of electricity from nuclear and coal, IAEA for nuclear capacity and Global Energy Monitor for coal capacity." EMsmile (talk) 08:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Nice of you to bring it together. Great to bring the captions closer together, but they should not be the same, as the graph has different functions in different articles.
  • For climate change mitigation, this should not be in the nuclear power section and not focus on nuclear power. The figure it great to show cost declines for VRE, but the cost increase for nuclear is a function of nuclears "bespoke" nature and therefore highly variable cost, not a trend per se. Its placement gives an anti-nuclear POV. Similarly, I don't think it's a great fit for Economics of nuclear power plants.
  • The small-font should go in the nuclear power article
  • None of the captions mentions innovation, which was a significant component of cost declines. Should be mentioned in climate change mitigation, renewable energy and cost of electricity by source.
Femke (talk) 16:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Why did renewables become so cheap so fast?".
  2. ^ "Why did renewables become so cheap so fast?". Our World in Data. Retrieved 2022-06-04.

ProveIt citation toolEdit

  • FYI I use - and love - the ease of the Wikipedia:ProveIt citation tool, available in a user's list of standard gadgets (under perferences)
  • On the projects tab "small to medium tasks", under "how to add a citation", I suggest this tool is so awesome it merits mentioning; if any of the eds who have created that awesome tab agree, please add it

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Certainly getting cites to "good article" standard is tedious. How is it better than "automatic" in Visual Editor please? For example can it do pdfs automatically? Chidgk1 (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
In ProveIt when you have a url, DOI, or ISBN you first select the specific citation template,then copy paste the url or number into one field and hit "Autoload" to populate as many fields as the code can populate. I love it! That said, I can't compare it to "automatic" in the Visual editor because that tool appeared when I wasn't looking and I didn't even know about it until you told me. If I said I still use AOL mail, I'd be joking, but its not far from the truth.... I'll try out visual editor in days ahead and get back. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
You can get the VE automatic citations in source editor too, if you prefer source editor. Beta -> new wikitext editor. Femke (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Just found and tried the Vis Ed approach and ProveIts only advantage, maybe, is a wider selection of citation templates. OTOH I almost never use any of the additional ones, so for me that's a wash. ProveIt seems slightly faster but not enough to care about. I guess cite automation has gone mainstream while I snoozed, so nevermind.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Process discussion re bulk edits with primary sourcesEdit

FYI you may be interested in this discussion Talk:Climate_change_mitigation#Explanation/discussion_of_large_edit NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

It's good that you brought this up. I've also been wondering about previous edits by User:Prototyperspective. They are not bad edits but I found it sometimes hard to figure out if they really add a lot of value or just add "more recent" information for some of the articles (I guess it can be a good thing if that makes articles more up to date but still). It's mostly content from 2022 in science that this user adds to other articles. Often it's great but sometimes it might overshoot the good intentions. I think I'm having a similar discussion with User:אלכסנדר סעודה on the talk page of sustainability: EMsmile (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
In all the popular pages in Wikipedia there is a constant adding of new information as it arrives. People say science can be replaced by better science. The question is if this increase or decrease the value of the page and also about the volume of the page. The page climate change mitigation for example is very long so even if I want to add much more content I do not do it. The page Sustainability is shorter but also long. Of course summary page must contain only very basic information. Because of this I think that the report I mention deserve mentioning in the page Sustainability in 2-3 lines and a specific page dedicated to it.
If there is a page with many views very important I agree that editors should not add more than several lines in one edit and than give time to others to familiarize with it. Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 12:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:MULTI in my opinion it makes the most sense to add further comments at the linked thread at article talk. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to rename Category:Carbon capture and sequestrationEdit

Please consider giving your opinion here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 June 13 Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Job posting - Wikimedian in Residence position for Climate change at University of ExeterEdit

Hi everyone. This is exciting news: . The purpose of the position is to "Enable the sharing of knowledge about climate change on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, through working with experts, students and others. Advocate about the power of open knowledge platforms to increase access to up-to-date climate information, and address issues of disinformation and misinformation." And you get to meet Femkemilene in real life! Please share with anyone who might be interested. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Women in Green - July GA Editathon EventEdit

Hello everyone -- I wanted to extend an invitation to all members of WikiProject Climate Change. Throughout the month of July, WikiProject Women in Green (which focuses on bringing articles about women and women's works up to Good Article [GA] status and beyond) is hosting a GA editathon event on the theme of "Women and the Environment." Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and the environment (e.g., climate scientists, environmental activists, or climate-related books and films by women), with editors of all experience levels welcome. GA editing resources and one-on-one support will be provided by Women in Green, and participants will have the opportunity to receive a barnstar for their efforts. We hope to see you there! All the best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for AntarcticaEdit

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Antarctica/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)