This graphic we are using for common era temperature data is based on historical data that you originally ran with in your similar png. Here's the current image:
File:Common_Era_Temperature.svg
Unfortunately, the historical data we are using pretty dramatically conflicts with the data shown in this 2018 National Climate Assessment graph, and I'm not sure what's more reliable:
https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/1#fig-1-8
I'd say that they are equally reliable, but just portraying quite a different time period. The NCA4 has 1901-1960 as its baseline, which means they don't have data for the poles (which only started being collected well later). Differences in interpolation and station selection will play a much smaller role in explaining why the figures aren't the same. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The graphs are both claiming to represent global mean surface temperature. The graphs are very different from 300 AD to about 1800 AD- the pre-measurement data. The graph from the 2018 National Climate Assessment shows the Midieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age as being very real things. The data we use on wikipedia suggests that those periods did not exist and that global temperature was very stable up until global warming kicked in. By saying poles weren't included in the NCCA4 data are you saying that the data we are using is more accurate for representing global mean surface temperature?--Efbrazil (talk) 19:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I derped, sorry. Completely ignore my previous answer, i compared two other graphs for some kind of reason.
The NCA4 shows only NH temperatures. MWP was mostly a North Atlantic thing, and LIA to a lesser extent as well I believe, so that is a reason. Only the last part of LIA was vulcanic (and mostly global). There may even be bias in NH reconstruction towards Europe/North America due to the fact we found more proxies there, but not sure. The data we are using is the new standard, definitely more reliable. Proxies are from an international data base, and seven different reconstruction methods are all included. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that makes sense. The NCA data is also weird in that I think they graphed the temperature data wrong on the X axis. The graph only goes up to about 1985 visually, but the caption talks about 2015 and if you overlay our graph on theirs then you see their temperature data is offset incorrectly by a decade or two. Their historical data is hemispheric like you say and also seems to be based on a dated 2008 study. Frustrating to see more sloppy work product on a US government Web site. Efbrazil (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - I actually worked to try to fix the most of the points before I renominated; however there are still a few that might not have been adequately addresses. I will list them on the review page so you can tell me what you think. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good for you for taking TO to heal up. I've been through that myself. FWIW I've had fewer issues since I started focussing on stretching and strengthening.... my shoulder ball joint, and shoulder blades areas! Happy resting NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, about that.. I'm not good at this. Really wanna get GW ready for copy-edit and then have a month off while we're on the waiting list. Keep on discovering things that won't pass a FAR about as fast as I'm fixing them though. Would be lovely to have GW shine on the mainpage as soon as COVID is old news. FN 14:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.162.179 (talk)
In that case, we probably have a good year. Been there done that... if you ignore repetitive strain injuries they get much harder to heal. In other words, don't do what I did (i.e., take short cuts to keep working) ! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NewsAndEventsGuy, you're right. I'm just utterly bored now. Learned french by listening podcasts, garden is in best shape ever.. Hired a scribe for work, starting tomorrow till my money runs low... Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wanna see the garden! We added chickens before we had a chicken coop. So today, out building it, with the birds "helping".... I reached into the container of screws and sure enough.... chicken poop. I wish I had caught a picture of the hen perched on the handle of my power miter saw, as though trying to push it down for a cut. Take care! You do mighty great work here. I'd rather suffer a real Femke wikibreak than forced retirement! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wat grappig--mijn boek (edited collection) over Bonifatius is net verschenen by Brill. Kleine wereld! Ik heb altijd al eens Exeter willen bezoeken--ik hoop dat het je goed gaat daar. Groetjes, Drmies (talk) 16:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, Amsterdam, mooiste stad van de wereld--maar in Montgomery, Alabama, stopt al jaren geen trein meer. Het allerbeste met je dissertatie! Drmies (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Femkemilene, I ask you for some advice. I and others as well have since quite some time trouble with some IPs that say Climate-Data.org (CDA) is unreliable. After several times where I as well have reinstated the data I let it be until now an account came and removed the data persistently again. I checked and double checked and the tables from CDA are from the years 1982–2012 (as per CDA) don't really reflect the current weather which is often quite much warmer. The weather data where I checked the tables differ about 10 degrees from the currently experienced temperatures. The current daily weather data by CDA is correct though, at least where I checked with the weather apps, maybe they differ 1-2 degrees but this is ok. I am not so much a weather editor, so I ask you for advice. I've let the editor go through for now, which I think is correct becaus of the data, but the editor is not so friendly and often just deletes the data without leaving edit summaries or replacing the data with valid ones and might get into trouble as this is his main interest.I would support that the faulty tables be replaced with a short description of the climate situation. But this should probably be done by someone who is a constructive editor and has a certain interest into weather.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to say I don't know the answer immediately and I'm trying to do a bit less on Wikipedia to make sure the last remnants of RSI don't come back.. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As the article is about a town in Turkey I have asked both editors if they would like an opinion from me. Have a nice holiday. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Join the RfC to define trust levels for WikiLoop DoubleCheck
I'd like to have a bit of text (half a paragraph?) about CC in popular culture and art for comprehensiveness. Most other language articles have it. It can be part of the public debate subsection, which I'm trying to find a less polarizing name for (public opinion invites too many irrelevant opinion polls, public discussion is too vague. This first paragraph of public debate should then mention:
All these examples are by English-speaking white men.. Mostly worried that English sources are biased against other languages, and we might be missing things with this. Giving fewer examples may be the solution.
The perfect source for this is Weart's online book. Would you be willing to do this?
NewsAndEventsGuy, that's a shame.. Me too, to be fair, but I don't think we need much, so I'll manage. Will do it later. Do you feel like removing some more cites from the lede (last paragraph)? Making sure they are cited in the rest of the article. I'm feeling a bit stuck with word smithing there. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for understanding, yeah I'll give that a go by this time tomorrow NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)........UPDATE ........ FYI I started reading some of the sources... thinking Aug 6 now more likely to suggest some changes. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Femke- Congrats on the move going through! What two figures do you want improved and how? Note that I added Fahrenheit to the temperature graphs a couple months back (that was an ask at one time). I also replaced your Paris temperature path graph with another one that has a lot more detail and that somebody else had promoted, but the new one has super-squinty text on smartphone. I could look to rebuild that one for SVG, but don't know if it's necessary. Efbrazil (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One of them has been improved already (the cherry picking). The other one is the historical set-up. The original source has a way higher-quality image.
Would be great if you can adjust the new Paris graph and get rid of all the tiny text that's not readable. The text below is not entirely factually accurate; the pledges are not set within the Agreement itself. The agreement itself just stipulates that pledges have to be made. I think this is solved by making it slightly vaguer: their current pledges set within the Paris climate agreement --> their current Paris Agreement pledgesFemke Nijsse (talk) 10:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The old timey graphic is updated to high res svg. I also redid the captions to compress them and to make them more easily understandable, let me know if you see a need for a further tweak. I'll crack open the Paris thing next... Efbrazil (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also updated the newer Paris graphic. I didn't go to the trouble of finding the data and replotting it, but I did make the text svg and legible similar to other graphs on the climate change page. Efbrazil (talk) 00:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the edit-a-thon on SDGs in September 2020
I am EMsmile, and I am a part of a group of people wishing to improve SDG-related articles on Wikipedia. We are organising this online SDG edit-a-thon during Global Goals Week, 18-26 September 2020. Please take part in it! If you have any questions about this work, please feel free to ask your question on the event's talk page here. The event page itself is here.
Hi, I was going to respond to your comments on Laura saying this, however, something tells me to take it to your talk page, rather than take your discussion of topic. This is meant as a friendly heads up rather than cause an argument or doubt the science as im not an expert on either climate change or tropical cyclones. Anyway, as you are aware we have to be very careful when we talk about tropical cyclones and climate change, this is because our records are not brilliant and are in fact a mess when it comes to intensity. In fact, I would state that we almost certainly know where and when a tropical cyclone hit but not how intense it was. For example, the US NHC states that the windspeeds estimated in their best tracks have about a ±10% uncertainty (pg 4), which probably increases to somewhere near 100% the further back in their database you go. I also note that the majority of the world estimate sustained winds over a 10-minute period sustained winds, while India uses 3 and the US uses 1-minute winds. Talking of India, their BT Database for the NIO has only just been extended back to 1982, while others are barely back to the start of the satellite era and were not based on Dvorak until the late 70's. As I said, it's a mess and we need global reanalysis to try and figure things out a bit further and that's before we get into the game of what gets a name. Fortunately I suspect that citizen scientists such as us both can use the reliable records to try and improve Wikipedia and the global TC record.Jason Rees (talk) 00:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that we should be careful when talking about science that is still heavily being developed, especially when it has become politically charged in a handful of countries. I fear though that people avoid the topic altogether. Last year a paper came out talking about conventional analysis really tries to not overstate humans influence, whereas for risk analysis we might want to avoid the other type of error: understating human influence. It is a lively topic within the scientific community, which I feel is often neglected in our Wikipedia articles.
Also of interest is this paper that come out a couple months ago, which extends the global record of intensity with 10 years, making visible significant trends in intensity within these uncertainty bounds you mentioned.
I will start working on the tropical cyclone article, which needs to be brushed up anyway for it to continue meeting the FA criteria. I'm not that good with prose, nor an expert on tropical cyclones, so I will need help from the core wiki project. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's a few graphical errors that need to be corrected in the graphic:
The arrow under "industrial revolution starts" is in the wrong location- it should point to the green / black dividing point I assume.
The vertical scale on the zoomed in view should match the vertical scale in the main view (spacing between 300 and 400 should be the same)- the zoom should only be the dates, not the vertical sizing (an offset is OK)
The green and black lines are dark and cartoonish, while the CO2 lines in light and dark blue are much thinner. They should match, probably to the light / dark blue line width.
The recommended svg font settings are font-family="Liberation Sans,sans-serif", you are using "DejaVu Sans". Not a big deal, but best if all image fonts match wikipedia standards.
A designer pointed out to me that the black ellipse showing the zoom location isn't good- the ellipse is taller than the graphed area, the lines connecting to it are drawn over the "2000" text, and it's really unnecessary to begin with. It would be better if the ellipse was eliminated, the 1000 --> 2000 callout rectangle was a bit longer (extending to year 2100) so that the callout lines wouldn't overlap "2000", and the callout lines were changed to dashed and connected to the correct points on the main graph.
You want to take a crack at those issues? I would, but I'd rather not learn your code for that graphic. I could do it all as a post-process if you like, but that's not the elegant solution. Efbrazil (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I see what you mean regarding #1, although it's a bit odd to have the arrow pointing to something that isn't the change in line color, plus the IPCC defines pre-industrial as the 1850-1900 average, so that's what I figured you were trying to call out. Thanks for taking 3 to 5 on... Efbrazil (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated Earth 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. --Soumya-8974talkcontribssubpages18:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For always being at the front of cleaning up and clarifying a complex system of articles about Climate and SDGs content! Keep up the great work, I am always excited to see your work rise in the WikiProject Climate Change Hot articles :) Keep up the great work! Sadads (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind words. Looking at the Hot articles, I'm mostly worried about my wiki addiction when I see my activity featured a bit too much. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, hey didn't see this response -- yeah, I am not too worried -- I have similar challenges-- as long as you find that healthy balance :) Sadads (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
New, simpler RfC to define trust levels for WikiLoop DoubleCheck
HI Femke/Archive 2,
I'm writing to let you know we have simplified the RfC on trust levels for the tool WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Please join and share your thoughts about this feature! We made this change after hearing users' comments on the first RfC being too complicated. I hope that you can participate this time around, giving your feedback on this new feature for WikiLoop DoubleCheck users.
Thanks and see you around online, María Cruz MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to update your settings to change the wiki where you receive these messages, please do so here.
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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.
I read that you are focused on other things first. I understand, but perhaps you can pass on the request to other Wikiproject Climate Change members. I updated the text again, making it clearer just why exactly it is so important.
I came across the lovely new Northern masked owl article a couple of days ago, through which I found the book Climate change adaptation strategies for Australian birds. My experience with the term "adaptation" in relation to climate change is that it predominantly relates to human/societal adaptation, so I'm less familiar with this area. I note the lead of Climate change adaptation mentions natural adaptation obliquely at the end of its first paragraph, but even its Adaptation in ecosystems section focuses on human intervention in natural systems, rather than the natural systems themselves, as does your suggestion on Talk:Climate change. I do wonder if we're missing something in the form of 'natural adaptation', without human intervention, such as species moving or perhaps even corals controlling the weather. I suspect the topic overlaps heavily with 'ecosystem resilience', and that may be why "adaptation" terminology remains mostly in use for human-related topics. I was wondering if you had come across much relating to this sort of "natural adaptation" concept during your recent research on adaptation? Best, CMD (talk) 08:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In writing this section, I found it quite difficult to find information about adaptation in ecosystems. I tried to explicitly seek it out. This may be because I was using the wrong Google search terms. Alternatively, it may be that adaptations within ecosystems is seen as an 'effect' of climate change, as there is no agency. For instance, human migration is either seen as adaptation or an effect, whereas I feel migration is simply seen as an effect of climate change for ecosystems. The AR5 IPCC report doesn't talk much about it either, for instance WG2 Ch14. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's good news then, as it means there's no giant hole in the articles. I checked the 2020 Global Biodiversity Outlook, and it also treats the term as strictly relating to human intervention (both adaptation efforts to help ecosystems, and natural-based adaptation through ecosystems). The FAO has also recently released new guidelines for both land and water food security adaptation, which is a quintessential case of a necessary adaptation sector that overlaps with ecosystems and ecosystem services. CMD (talk) 09:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Femke, I just noticed that you tried to fix the archive bot on Talk:Atmosphere of Earthabout a year ago. I just wanted to let you know why it wasn't working: the |archive= parameter was set to "Talk:Earth's atmosphere/Archive %(counter)d". That means the archive pages are not subpages of the talk page itself, so the bot won't do any work. It happens a lot, and is almost always caused by page moves in the past. I've fixed it now (I'm going through Category:Pages where archive parameter is not a subpage), but I just wanted to let you know in case you come across something like this in the future. --rchard2scout (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, regarding your message on Talk:Climate change, maybe try anti-inflammatories like Curcumin/Turmeric? Also, I'm not going to make any major changes in the article, so don't worry while in the wiki break... Bogazicili (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My name is Daniel, and I’m a senior at Harvard University currently writing an undergraduate thesis about Wikipedia. I’m particularly interested in how the Wikipedia community decides what facts are relevant and/or notable enough to warrant inclusion on a particular article — especially in regards to articles on contentious topics.
I noticed that you’ve been quite active editing the “Climate change” article over the past few months. So, would you mind if I send you a few questions (via email or right here) about your work editing that article, and the approach that you take? I’d really love to hear from you.
Could you send the questions to my work email? I'm having some difficulty typing due to tendinitis, and my accessibility software is sometimes a bit flaky on Wikipedia.
Thanks for responding, Femkemilene! I'd be happy to send my questions to your work email. Unfortunately, I'm not yet sure how to view user emails; would you be able to post yours here? (If that's a privacy concern, I can also post my questions here, and you can reply via email to danielleonard@college.harvard.edu.) Thanks so much! --Dalorleon (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A short lightning talk about what I would like to discuss on Sunday
Hi Femke, first of all I would like to say that I really enjoyed your appearance on the The World According to Wikipedia podcast! Next, I would like to invite you to join the Movement Strategy implementation meeting on environmental sustainability, which is taking place next Sunday. If you have so far intentionally steered clear of the discussions about the Movement Strategy to focus your time on Wikipedia editing, I will of course respect that, but as we move forward in the 'implementation' phase, things will become increasingly practical. Happy to answer any questions you may have if I can. Thank you, --Gnom (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned, I was thinking about giving you a barnstar for a while now. I think this one fits perfectly, as you contributed a large amount of high-quality content to climate change related articles! Bogazicili (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This paragraph is now similar to the first paragraph of the long-term trends section. I do wonder whether the long-term trends section should be named into climate variability and change. It would then have three subsections: paleostuff, variability (including the subsection about ENSO earlier in the article), and climate change. I would always start writing from a source, even if you know a lot about the topic, because it's sometimes difficult to collect all the different sources that have all the facts that you found interesting. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My aim is for the climatology section to replace the long term trends section full stop, but how much detail I need to go into about paleotempestological research, historical records of TC impacts from say 1000 AD, weather stations, aircraft recon, satellite imagery, modern-day variability, formal reanalysis efforts, future trends and climate change is up for debate. My feeling is that I may need to develop an article on Tropical cyclone climatology, that can go more into detail about some of the stuff I mentioned above. As for the title, Climatology seems a better fit for now.Jason Rees (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The word climatology technically doesn't include climate change, as it's the fixed 30 year average/variability of a certain metrological variable. As such, both past and current climate change not quite fit under that section title. What about climatic variation? That would also make sure we don't go into much of the technical details. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to be strict strict then the word climatology is specifically the fixed 30 year average/variability of a certain metrological variable. However, National Geographic NHC and other sources show that Climatology is much more broad - in fact the National Geographic defines it as: the study of the atmosphere and weather patterns over time. This field of science focuses on recording and analyzing weather patterns throughout the world and understanding the atmospheric conditions that cause them. Either way im more worried about the so called Beast from the East 2 then the section title for now.Jason Rees (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I’m getting the idea that Sanitation WikiProject editors don’t understand what a featured article is, or how to write top content, perhaps because that project has never produced a Featured article. In fact, the project has rarely even produced a Good article (I find three?), and working at FA level does not seem to be something they are familiar with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that didn't go as intended. Let's hope it's a learning experience there. I like to imagine I would have been stubborn enough to learn the FA criteria if climate change had gotten a notice two years ago. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What concerns me is the number of editors who have been editing a very long time, yet don’t seem to be aware of what good or featured content even is, or how good content is built on Wikipedia. Sorry to see Graham putting in so much effort, spending his own money to buy books, and always excited when we have a chance to save a star because an FA knowledgeable writer engages ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see this particular interaction -- but @SandyGeorgia: there is also a lot of room for folks who take (highly impactful, visible) content from "eh" to "good enough" -- the Quality content processes on EnWiki are quite specialized as FemkeMilene highlights -- takes a lot of stubbornness --- for me it took a lot of work to realize I was only ever interested in GA quality work, FA just wasn't worth it. Anyway keep up the great work but also "many hands..." Sadads (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand and recognize similar, but I’m referencing something else. Editors can work in walled gardens for years and not have a basic understanding of Wikipedia guidelines and how articles are built to conform to policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for sure -- I have noticed with that particular bubble of content -- there are also a lot of people who have forgotten how to creatively interrogate content as well -- we don't really have a good culture of onboarding first principles in the community in general -- I am particularly hopeful that Wikipedia:Growth Team features will socialize these features more thoroughly in the community, with more people, Sadads (talk) 20:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Today's FA is 1080° Snowboarding and this seems an easy standard to match or surpass. I've not tried it myself but my impression is that Allen's adage applies, "80% of success is showing up". If Femkemilene wants assistance with any further attempts, please feel free to ask. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I’m pretty sure Buffy was a serious article ... cuz I think Moni3 wrote it, and her body of work was scholarly. But in the “encyclopedia anyone can edit”, we still have all kinds of articles, meaning all kinds of featured articles, and I’ll take a road FA any day over advocacy editors who don’t really understand how to build encyclopedic content. Right now, I-70 is looking a whole lot better than the suite of articles that brought on this discussion! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While I do appreciate our little pearls about smaller topics like the Interstate, I do hope we'll get more engagement with big topics at FAC. FAR now seems to be the route to get significant improvements on the big topics, and hopefully we'll get even more people engaged if we coordinate more with TFA. Seeing/helping those being saved is really what motivates me; sometimes I feel guilty I'm reviewing all the cherries at URFA/2020, leaving more "boring" articles to the rest of you. When I've got a bit more time, I'd like to organize another core contest to get more of those articles in the GAN/FAC pipeline.
I have tried to estimate how much time I spent on getting climate change FA level twice (here and on the Dutch wiki). I started in 2013/2014, with maybe 400 hours total. Seriously hope sustainable energy will take considerably less time. I probably wouldn't have started editing seriously here if :nl:climate change hadn't been brought to the Dutch equivalent of FAR in 2018, luring me back to Wikipedia after a few years of low activity. Now I might be doing the same at our FAR. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes to all of the above, re motivating via FAR :). I usually get stuck reviewing the others, but if our work overall motivates editors to get involved with the BIG saves, it’s a price I’ll pay. Hope we don’t lose this one, though ... after all of Graham’s effort, it would be sad. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is to let you know that the Earth article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 22, 2021. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 22, 2021, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.
For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.
Thank you for supporting Project WikiLoop! The year 2020 was an unprecedented one. It was unusual for almost everyone. In spite of this, Project WikiLoop continued the hard work and made some progress that we are proud to share with you. We also wanted to extend a big thank you for your support, advice, contributions and love that make all this possible.
Thank you for taking the time to review Wikipedia using WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Your work is important and it matters to everyone. We look forward to continuing our collaboration through 2021!
Hello, Femke. You have new messages at Talk:Huaynaputina. Message added 15:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sustainable energy 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 Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's very hard to verify anything you say in articles if the information is paywalled. This is a problem not just for me, but also for the lay audience that is going to be reading these articles, and also for anyone reviewing intermediate edits made years from now. If you just include quotes from paywalled source material in your references then all those problems go away.
Why would quotes be discouraged in FAs? I don't understand how copy/paste of a quote is in any way onerous on editors, and I don't see substantial down sides to including limited quotes. If the content is just a click away then they shouldn't be needed as a rule, but if there's registration or cost or something that is in print only, why not include the quote?
I'm less concerned about Lancet in particular, but when I click that link to Lancet I'm told that "In order to complete your request, Library Card needs permission to access information about you, including your email address, on all projects of this site. No changes will be made with your account." Then it throws an error code "Sorry, something went wrong connecting this application. Go back and try to connect your account again, or contact the application author. OAuth token not found, E004" That qualifies as not straight forward, so a quote would be very helpful. Efbrazil (talk) 19:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll can always give a quote on the talk page. Just let me know what you're interested in. It's not about the burden on an editor (which is high at FA), but about not cluttering up an article with text already paraphrased in the article.
I just tried the wp library, and it took me 20 seconds to access a source via it. I'm sure people can help you there if you;re experiencing trouble. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article Sustainable energy you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sustainable energy for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 09:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to utilize a sandbox in my userspace to write up the intensity section. I have been doing some research on tools/techniques and wind-pressure relationships during the last couple of days. I should be able to begin a write-up this afternoon after my midterm exam. I should be able to get decent work done on Thursday and Friday. My feeling is a lot of people are in the same boat I am in with midterms and finals in courses coming. NoahTalk13:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done with the midterm now. I have a final in that course and another on Monday so it's not over yet lol... I'm aiming to get the satellite intensity tools written up today and continue on with more tomorrow afternoon. Keep in mind this will be a rather extensive update to the article once this is all complete. NoahTalk20:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know what you think about the methods section thus far. I only have one more point to add in on height reduction conversion and it should be good. If it looks okay to you, I will add it in today under intensity. NoahTalk11:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to come back tonight with more. Is this for the classification section? Or to replace Tropical_cyclone#Observation?
It is supposed to go under the intensity heading. It isn't designed to replace observation, but simply exist as a brief mention to state that surface observations assess the intensity. Keep in mind that intensity is a decently large topic overall. NoahTalk12:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Methods feels like a heading I expect in a paper, not really on WP.
I think there are too details: is The Dvorak technique utilizes a scale of "T-numbers", scaling in increments of ½ from T1.0 to T8.0. Each T-number has an intensity assigned to it, such as T2.5 equalling 40 mph (65 km/h) or minimal tropical storm intensity and T4.0 equalling 75 mph (120 km/h) or minimal hurricane strength relevant to our reader?
I believe it is important for our readers to know how the intensity is determined in full rather than omitting the T-numbers portion. Just mentioning the patterns used to classify tropical cyclones doesn't go far enough to show how the intensity is determined. I have simplified a bit. NoahTalk18:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Typically no need to introduce abbreviations if you are not going to use them any further. Consider not using the official name for the more minor techniques, if there are any. FemkeMilene (talk) 12:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and thanks for your notes over the article I created climate change and children, I respected your recommendations and would love second feedback over the changes.Tima93Lb (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have another look later :). Note that you can start a new section on a talk page by adding ==Heading== on top.
I see you reverted this. While I agree, perhaps it's useful to expand the section on this issue (climate adaptation measures which act against sea level rise not being on track). Have you read the article link you took out ? You'll see its quite important, and I assume a same issue occurs with other large-scale projects against climate change. I think the section should make it clear that the the issue exists, and that monitoring off the projects/transparency is or can be an issue.
--Genetics4good (talk) 07:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find a secondary source for that? I see the adaptation section is in need of a bit of love in general, with quite a few country specific examples, which should ideally be rewritten from a more general perspective. FemkeMilene (talk) 07:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One project that comes to mind is MOSE, which was troubled with a long construction delay and technical issues (hinges, ...).
Probably more important then this is the fact that there is no global outlook, ie there are global floodmaps (see sea level article) but these don't really show the benefits that the sea level defenses (that are planned or are being executed) will bring (so basically showing an incorrect and too pessimistic view of sea level rise impact).
Perhaps you can ask the Climate Change wikiproject members to look on whether any online floodmaps exist that take these benefits of the planned/executed sea level defenses into account. I'm thinking of google maps/google earth maps like this, but then with markers on it for the projects, and showing the effects of them. Big benefit would be is that it would then also show the areas which aren't protected, and where reforestation projects (mangroves, sea grass, ...) or conventional sea walls can be set up that have major benefit. That would have great benefit on addressing climate change too, as the minute you get one flooding of a section of land, much of the vegetation dies off due to salinity, and the vegetation obviously traps carbon in place so is then released. I'm thinking that such maps already exist as there are many large organisations working on this (UN, FAO, ...) and there are also many ecologists/professors working on the issue. --Genetics4good (talk) 08:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think a good secondary+overview source is the 2020 adaptation gap report. Unfortunately, it's not structured thematically by climate change impact, so it is not super easy to extract generic information from it. It does go into more detail on options for nature-based adapation specific to coastal hazards.
Hey Femke,
can you take a look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climate_change#Car_lease. Already did some work on it, but would like to leave that last bit to others. May not seem a relevant climate change page at first, but actually it is quite important as it can be a significant driver for change (ie increasing amount of people simply working from home, or use bicycles rather then cars for home-work travel.
--Genetics4good (talk) 07:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for your comments on the ongoing FA review on groups. We (mostly me) edited the article according to your requests. A few of them I didn't yet address since I consider the status to be OK there. Would you mind giving an update on your requests (e.g. strike out the ones you are OK with, comment on others)? Thanks,
There is a procedure yes. The article is now in the FAR phase, which can have two outcomes: either the article is considered FA material here and the process is closed with consensus is reached (you'll see people say close without FARC), or if concerns aren't addressed the article is moved the the featured article removal candidate phase. In that phase, the article can still be 'saved', but people are also allowed to indicate 'delist' if concern are still not met, and with consensus the article can be demoted
Considering the good work done, I would guess there will be one more list of issues added that needs to be addressed before everybody is happy that the article meets the FA criteria again. I hope some other editors will have a look, as I'm likely to overlook certain issues. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for participating in the recent discretionary sanctions community consultation. We are truly appreciative of the range of feedback we received and the high quality discussion which occurred during the process. We have now posted a summary of the feedback we've received and also a preview of some of what we expect to happen next. We hope that the second phase, a presentation of draft recommendations, will proceed on time in June or early July. You will be notified when this phase begins, unless you choose to to opt-out of future mailings by removing your name here.
--Barkeep49 & KevinL (aka L235) 21:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A nice be of collaboration on Ground source heat pump with a good outcome. A much better title for the reasons we presented. Thanks for taking the initiative on this. FYI I am now going to go through the article pretty thoroughly from top to bottom and bring up the standard and possibly also cut back on any excessive wordiness. PeterEastern (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I see my role these days as being to take a rather verbose dated article in a subject area that I am interested in, take out the vagueness and repetitiveness, bring it up to date and then add some references. No expectation that you are active on that, I was simply wanting to appreciate your proposal to move the article. PeterEastern (talk) 13:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I like that phrase :) Hadn't heard it used like that before. FYI, I had actually misread what you said above first time, and though you said there was a 'zero chance' you would work on heat pump in future. See you round! PeterEastern (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What would it take to have Skeptical Science considered a „reliable source“ by WP standards?
Hi Femke,
thanks for suggesting your talks page to ask my question! I hope I‘m doing this the right way now.
Many scientists have endorsed Skeptical Science (SkS) over the years as shown on endorsement page and also regularly send people our way publicly, be it on Twitter, in their presentations or books. In addition, we‘ve recently become a registered 501(c)(3) science education non profit organization which we announced via a blog post on April 8: https://sks.to/sks-501c3. We are currently still identifying pages where we need to apply updates to reflect this new status and could then also clarify our internal publishing process. Would wording like the following on our About page help with the determination?
„All original material published by Skeptical Science undergoes a peer-review process similar to that employed by academic journals , with all published material under strict editorial supervision and only released to the public after inspection for accuracy.“
(talk page stalker) the applicable policy is WP:RS and general questions this sort are often discussed at the WP:RSN. Although I've been a fan of SkepSci since it was pretty much just John, I think it will be a hard lift to overcome WP:SELFPUB. Best would probably be inline attribution, e.g., According to Skeptical Science, blah blah blah... However, since SkepSci is generally based on other sources most of the time it should be possible to use the other sources directly. PS Hi Femke, thanks for your continued dedication here. I've just popped in from a brief visit before going back to wikibreak. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I had the same impression as NewsAndEventsGuy: that it was mainly Cook, so that it falls under self-publication from an subject-matter expert. Editors seem agree that SkS needs attribution in normal articles and cannot be used in biographies (for instance biographies of climate deniers) for which we have higher sourcing requirements.
Getting that statement on the about page is good, clarifying whether peer-review is as independent as with journals (is it blind peer review?). Or is it more an internal peer review? A second statement about how to report inaccuracies would also be good. Evidence of corrections is another way by which sources climb up the ladder to being considered as reliable by a wider set of wikipedia editors. I think this would not quite be enough to make it suitable in biographies of living people, but might get you closer. Other things to improve trust is a more complete byline (Sarah without surname isn't quite what we look for as the name of an author), and some editors name a paid editorial board as another aspect of professionalism. And, while not in our policies about reliable sourcing, a more professional web design would be good.
Thanks for your responses NAEG and Femke! Skeptical Science is no longer „just“ John Cook‘s website, but has many contributors from around the globe who write blog posts, maintain rebuttals or translate selected content into other languages. If you are interested in the details, you can get an overview via this interactive iPoster I presented at last year‘s AGU Fall Meeting.
@Femke - regarding our internal peer review process: it is not blind. We share drafts of blog posts and rebuttals for others from our team to comment on or collaborate in the writing. So it‘s an informal process. We also recently added a link to a Google-form to our rebuttals where readers can suggest changes which we then discuss internally. Regarding the author names: these are set with registering a user on Skeptical Science and some people prefer not to show their full names and/or chose a „screen name“ for whatever reason. In some instances they show their full name in their profile as you can see on our team page, but not always. Internally, we obviously know who they are. Oh, and the web design „is what it is“. We are an all volunteer team where all the work is done in our spare time, so work on the website is slowly happening in the background, but there‘s a lot to do before we can even start thinking about changing the design. Does that help? BaerbelW (talk) 06:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant. Transparency will definitely make more editors comfortable using that source. I hope the new status as a 501(c)(3) will give a boost to SkS. Years ago, I was on the verge of sending an email to volunteer translating articles on SkS to Dutch, but got hooked on getting rid of climate denial on Wikipedia instead, which was quite prevalent on the Dutch wikipedia. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As you mention translations: it‘s how I ended up helping with SkS when I offered to help with translations into German in 2010. Since 2013 I‘ve been coordinating all translation efforts for SkS and even „branched out“ into translations for the various handbooks John Cook and/or Stephan Lewandowsky published. Speaking of which: we don‘t yet have Dutch translations of The Debunking Handbook 2020 and The Conspiracy Theory Handbook - just in case you might be interested and had the time. BaerbelW (talk) 06:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work with SkepSci BaerbelW. A long time ago I asked the site to look into CC licensing for graphics so they could be used here. As you point out the site has grown manyfold since it was just Cook in an extra room in his flat. However, as you point out, contributors are making BLOG posts. That's the definition of SELFPUB. They might be reviewed internally but they're still BLOG posts. SELFPUB does have an except for subject matter experts, but the process can invite drama, take a long time, and after the dust settles some passing trouble maker can make the stink all over again. So its better to go to the source material SkepSci writers are using or provide inline attribution, as stated previously. Alas 501c3 status makes zero difference for RS analysis here. For example, The Heritage Foundation has a 501c3 status, and we all know they are a the source of much climate denial. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback and context, NAEG! Regarding graphics: all of the ones shown on our graphics resource page come with a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. we've also uploaded John Cook's FLICC-icons to Wikimedia Commons to make them easily accessible. Regarding blog posts: do you consider the backbone of SkS - namely our rebuttals - as blog posts as well? BaerbelW (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I consider most things on SkS on a higher tier than a blog, exactly because there is an internal review process. I can see a paid/professional website could have higher standards as they will have more time for the production of pieces, but I wouldn't put it squarely under SELFPUB. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not analyze this from how the world should work, nor from what we know about science, nor from any other personal expertise. Instead, the question is how do wikipedia editors collectively view the question? In my opinion.... measured in that manner, at face value SkepSci has all the appearance of what Wikipedia editors consider a self-published source. SO I would phrase the question as "Is the author-expertise plus internal review procedures at Skep Sci adequate, as defined by Wikipedia policies and guideliness, to win a consensus from other editors that it merits use as an WP:RS? That's a slippery slope. If we break this ground with Skep Sci, the problematic sources like Judith Curry and WattsUpWithThat and Heritage Foundation are all smart enough to figure out how to craft their own work to shoe horn into the same set of metrics. If you want to vet Skep Sci despite that risk, go to the WP:RSN and hash it out there. In my view the better approach is to assume if its in SkepSci its in unquestionably RS sources so those are better to use, altneratively use inline attribution NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can't you get out on the Exe or do something physical or social to relax? :-) If so do it while you can and ignore the rest of this section - who knows what you will be able to do tomorrow.
Went for a nice long walk today :). I'll have a quick look, but it's quite difficult to check whether you have double counted emission sources, as you really need to be deep into the sourcing for that. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contributions to yesterday's meetup. Seeing fresh coverage of an issue that you highlighted, I found that we didn't have a page for it and so I have made a start at nociplastic pain. This might be worked up into a DYK to start with but, as medical topics are challenging, I'd appreciate any further input that you have. @Whispyhistory: may know more about this too. Now, I must stop sitting in my chair and take some exercise. Excesssive editing may damage your health, eh! Andrew🐉(talk) 10:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Paris Agreement 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 Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 20:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know, I'm on holiday for a few days starting tomoorow, and the review won't be completed until after I return. Feel free to tackle the issues I've raised already, even though there are more to come. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 12:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant, have fun! I'll be on holiday too Fr-Su :), but should have some time tomorrow. Thanks for your thorough review so far. FemkeMilene (talk) 13:08, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Sustainable Energy has been completed.
I discovered that in Edit Mode using Visual Editor if you preview the text before saving it an error message like the following appears in certain sections. It is not one I have seen before and seems to relate to the "citec" template which, although I understand what it is for, I have not come across either. (The error message only appears in Preview mode.
Hammond, Geoffrey P.; Jones, Craig I. "Sustainability criteria for energy resources and technologies". In Galarraga, González-Eguino & Markandya (2011), pp. 21–47. Harvc error: no target: CITEREFGalarragaGonzález-EguinoMarkandya2011 (help)
I do not know how to "fix" this error.
I made an editorial decision to leave all of the numbers appearing in the article as numerals for consistency throughout even though some like "7 million deaths" would normally be written in words. This avoids dealing with segments like "contributes 12%. An additional 5%" etc...
Best of luck with your (collective) attempt to achieve FA status.
The article Paris Agreement you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Paris Agreement for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 07:21, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Femkemilene. I work for the electric vehicle company Rivian and I'm looking for advice on updating our page. I am in a conflict of interest COI relationship and therefore need to work with a volunteer editor. Given your interests in environmental topics, I was wondering if you might find it a good use of your time to work with me on allowable edits to improve the page. One example is, I’m not sure the Amazon delivery van content belongs in the history section. For several months I’ve reached out to over half a dozen volunteer editors without much success. It is always my goal to stick to the rules and standards of Wikipedia. I look forward to your reply. Thank you IanRivian (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Femke. I'm very much in learning mode here and I'm sure you're right about 'criticism' sections. He's a super old chap, of course, but it seems to me that sometimes senior figures like him have their more peripheral views (which may be built on assumptions from a very long time ago) exploited by people whose true intent they'd probably deprecate.SteveCree2 (talk) 08:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Steve and welcome to Wikipedia :).
With opinions about controversial topics like population, one of the more difficult tasks for us editors is to give it Wikipedia:DUE weight. Crudely said: what percentage of coverage of David Attenborough contains criticism of his opinion on population growth? We should strive for a similar percentage. Most of his quick biographies don't even mention the opinion, never mind the criticism. As such, we should not be mentioning it as prominently as we have. The old first paragraph may have been too positive, his BAFTA achievement is also not mentioned in most short biographies, indicating that we put a bit too much emphasis on it. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya. I'm sorry, but won't have time to do this anytime soon, as I'm in the middle of a house move and not back to normal energy levels after catching COVID. Nice to see the improvements :). FemkeMilene (talk) 15:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear about the long COVID. Why do bad things happen to good people? On my end, I should have more time this month as holiday season is done and the kids will settling into school. I'll try to get through my to-do list and the remaining peer review issues for Sustainable energy. Take good care of yourself. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :). Naively moving to a conservative country without proper rental protection, and where politicians assume everybody has a car (I probably got COVID on the bus to my second jab, which was too far out of the city to safely cycle). I'm happy to nominate around September 20 assuming I'll be recovered enough by then. FemkeMilene (talk) 07:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great work on prose! I don't think emerengency management is needed, as it's a bit academic to put it under adaptation. I would like to put the Paris Agreement into the last sentence. It's now a vague goal, with a precise solution. These numbers correspond to the more ambitious Paris goal of limiting global warming to 1.5C. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. No opinion on how to do that, but we've got room for the first sentence of the last paragraph of the lead, if that's what you want: "Under the 2015 Paris Agreement, nations collectively agreed to keep warming "well under 2.0 °C (3.6 °F)" through mitigation efforts." - Dank (push to talk) 15:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Estimate of Phanerozoic Global Surface Temperature of Planet Earth
"Humans don't need to be mentioned twice, weird gendering. In few days I'll post different solution." - You opinion is weird to my scientific understanding, as there are many different flavours of climate changes. The current one, which is mainly triggered by human-made CO2 emissions (and other greenhouse gases) is covered by the reverted article. It is important to point out that this kind of climate change is completely different from the climate change of glacials and interglacials which were triggered by Milankovich cycles and that there were different kind of climate changes which were triggered by AMOC disturbances and there were different kind of climate changes which were triggered by flood basalt eruptions. Therefore, this article talks about man-made climate change. What's weird about this - do you prefer anthropogenic? You can't say that climate change includes both global warming driven by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases and the resulting large-scale shifts in weather patterns. The latter one is climate change and consequently a circular definition, isn't it? Climate change is the overall concept of a changing climate, and if you want to point out that a special kind of climate change is adressed in this article, this has to be clearly indicated in the introduction. That is similar to writing an abstract - you shall not tell unprecise nonsense. If there was an omission in the lemma due to simplification, this is not allowed in the main text on a scientific subject. --Gunnar (talk) 17:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree mostly with your problem sketch, and have some ideas to solve it that do not require us to use what I regard as poor prose. Bear with me, I'm slower than normal, but will try to post something over the weekend. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I think your behaviour is bad style, just reverting what I wrote without proposing something different on the talk page, where there is a specific thread on this topic. I still believe my solution is much better than the weird perversion of language which is done in the first few lines of this article. If you have a better solution, please go ahead and implement it, but just to revert and not coming up with an improvement is kind of arrogant. --Gunnar (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I'm slow at the moment, I've been meaning to respond, but I've got very little energy at the moment due to a Covid infection. Normally, I would have shown more appreciation for your input. I think the way you solved the problem came over as 'defensive', by mentioning the human cause twice in one sentence, which brings some POV issues comparable to what was discussed at the recent FAR. FemkeMilene (talk)
I don't want to complicate matters, but I favor "Human-inducedModern-era climate change includes both global warming driven by human-caused emissions..." (or similar). I disfavor "Human-induced climate change" because that phrase sounds like a generic description, implying there might be other epochs in which humans caused climate change.
Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, Primefac and Wugapodes.
The following had consensus support of participating editors:
Corrosive RfA atmosphere
The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.
Level of scrutiny
Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.
Standards needed to pass keep rising
It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.
Too few candidates
There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.
"No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins
The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:
Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere) Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.
Admin permissions and unbundling There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.
RfA should not be the only road to adminship Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.
Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.
There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Thanks. Interesting. In the physical climate system, especially in the cryosphere, I'm noticing a different trend. It seems more likely that there are tipping points in for instance the Greenland ice sheet. Femke (talk) 12:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.
There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this special, very exclusive award created just for we few, we happy few, this band of brothers, who have shed sweat, tears and probably blood, in order to be able to proudly claim "I too have taken an article to Featured status". Gog the Mild (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And, amazing, sustainable energy is now already on the Main page! Introduced: "Over the past 2.5 years, this article has been completely rewritten from high-quality sources. I believe it’s now global in scope, reflects the most current accepted knowledge on the topic with balanced coverage of its many aspects, and gives the general reader an understandable overview of a complex topic." - Thank you and team! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know him unfortunately. It seems he passed just a couple of months after I started becoming active on enwiki. A shame we never got to work together. Femke (talk) 10:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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.
It's extremely hard to appreciate your work on Climate change article without talking a difficult article, whether is it because of Eel on Musk's tweets, misinformation, or the popularity of the topic. Congrats on the article's FA, and your work certainly inspire me to chase the impossible dream of making SpaceX Starship among the best as well. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On behalf of the FAR coordinators, thank you, Femke! Your work on Climate change has allowed the article to retain its featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. You may display this FA star upon your userpage. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would have sent you a pic of the white Van cat which sometimes frequents our garden but today I can't see it - the ground is covered in snow. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ideas were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular Primefac, Lee Vilenski, and Ymblanter for closing the most difficult conversations and for TonyBallioni for closing the review of one of the closes.
The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:
Revision of standard question 1 to Why are you interested in becoming an administrator? Special thanks to xaosflux for help with implementation.
A new process, Administrative Action Review (XRV) designed to review if an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy in a process similar to that of deletion review and move review. Thanks to all the editors who contributed (and are continuing to contribute) to the discussion of how to implement this proposal.
Removal of autopatrol from the administrator's toolkit. Special thanks to Wugapodes and Seddon for their help with implementation.
The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:
Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at RFA's talk page or an appropriate village pump.
A final and huge thanks all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months.
This is the final update with no further talk page messages planned.
01:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Re: work on the Italian page "Riscaldamento globale"
Hello @Femke, I am an italian contributor to wikipedia. First I wanted to thank you for your contributions on the topic of Climate change, in the english version and on the italian page. I had noted that in comparison to other versions the italian one was not very great, but I am not an expert and I did not know where to start or what to add exactly. I think that the italian version was not uptated year to year: it did not mention the Paris agreement of 2015 until i added it this August...
I saw your contribution on the talk page, and I wanted to add the Lancet citation but the link you gave did not work to me; was the reference to this article: [7]?
Hello! Great you want to help out. The Italian article gets about 650 pageviews a day, so it's important that it's accurate. I've put some more comments on the talk page. I pointed towards the IPCC Summary for policymakers, which should be understandable to nonexperts. I've corrected the link to the Lancet paper. Happy holidays! Femke (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I think this [8] is a great and necessary project, and since the Hannah Arendt's quote you have on your user page is sadly true I wanted to give my little help. On the italian page, I have added the reference to the Lancet article; another user has also contribuited to make the page better, folowing your suggestions.
I also think that the italian pages "Controversia sul riscaldamento globale" and "Controversia della mazza da hockey" may need a review and can be better. If I have enough time I am also considering the creation, translating from the en. wiki, of an italian version of the page "Scientific consensus on climate change". --Tormund99 (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The English version of the controversy article is also in need of improvement. I'm not quite sure what should be done. A lot of it is historical. Current controversies are more around solutions. Femke (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, the problem with the italian page on the controversy is that it does not stresses enough the fact that there is a scientific consensus on the cause of global warming.--Tormund99 (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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) 16:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen many of these diagrams, and they are all different, which means that they are discrepant, inconsistent with each other, and thus just estimates. Science is not about estimating or guessing. Is wikipedia up to include guesses as knowledge? Are you going to substitute this diagram for the other? DTMGO (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They're all pretty consistent, this is basic science. Please continue this discussion on the relevant article talk page, a dialogue isn't that useful to establish consensus. Femke (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Femke In an energy imbalance there does not necesarilly need to be a temperature change, for example when you boil water, the phase changes from liquid to vapour, but the temperature remains at 100C at 1 atmosphere of pressure. This unsourced claim is erroneus and needs to be removed again. DTMGO (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that phase transitions can occur instead. But for the globe, this energy never goes only into one subsystem, and most subsystems are not on the verge of a phase transition. Femke (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Femke There is phase transition in oceans when evaporation forms clouds for example, this does not need to take place at 100 celsius, look at water pressure thermodynamic curves.
Oh dearie. I pinged the top contributors who were still active, and didn't look into whether they may have been disruptive. Let's hope I didn't cause them to engage disruptively... Femke (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Femke. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
In a process that began last year with WP:DS2021, the Arbitration Committee is evaluating Discretionary Sanctions (DS) in order to improve it. A larger package of reforms is slated for sometime this year. From the work done so far, it became clear a number of areas may no longer need DS or that some DS areas may be overly broad.
The topics proposed for revocation are:
Senkaku islands
Waldorf education
Ancient Egyptian race controversy
Scientology
Landmark worldwide
The topics proposed for a rewording of what is covered under DS are:
India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
Armenia/Azerbaijan
Additionally any Article probation topics not already revoked are proposed for revocation.
Hi Femkemilene, when you said about "shoehorning scientific papers and news articles into the harv style", I wondered if you could access the menu of templates when in editing mode. The templates make it as easy for me to cite journals, news articles and online pages as books. Just a thought. Get well soon! (I've just recovered from Covid this week), Amitchell125 (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's an unexpected application of the blueprint. I'm not sure it will work for topics without misinformation.
Most importantly, make sure that the English version of the article is in tip-top shape. I see you're getting help at the peer review and the GAR to improve the article further (and don't be domotivated by a GAR, it's just people that really want to help!). NPOV issues and text-source integrity as very important :).
Given we're not dealing with misinformation here, but usually with a lack of information, people on non-English Wikipedias will have to put in more work compared to the climate denial project. As such, try to really target people interested in the topic, not a random admin.
To get CO2 atmosphere data from Wikidata, you'd use code like this: 414.72 PPM. It's not the most elegant haha, but it works, and it'd update automatically across all languages when you updated the numbers on Wikidata. {{u|Sdkb}}talk08:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sdkb Thanks - I just looked and it is the average for 2020 - but I could not find the 2021 average - if I find it I will update and check it comes through to here. To get it to work on another language I changed it to 414.72 ppm Have added to tr:Sera gazları - let's see if my change is approved without a year or ref in the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A RfC is open to discuss prohibiting draftification of articles over 90 days old.
Technical news
The deployment of the reply tool as an opt-out feature, as announced in last month's newsletter, has been delayed to 7 March. Feedback and comments are being welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project. (T296645)
I assume you mean you'd like to create an article, @Booknerd2021? Welcome! Creating a new article from scratch is extremely challenging, and new editors are strongly recommended to spend a few months learning how Wikipedia works, by making improvements to some of our existing six million articles before trying it. When you do decide to have a go at a new article, you are highly encouraged to read WP:Your first article. If you haven't already also check out WP:TUTORIAL; it's a lot of fun! Happy editing!
Hiya! I would like to know how to edit the section at the very beginning that introduces the author and also the section where the author has a picture of themselves and date of birth, death and so on. I can't figure that out at all. There are errors in these sections that I'm interested in editing and I can't figure out how to access them. Thank you! --Birdonwall (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I assume you're trying to edit Emma Brooke. You have probably used the edit botton directly next to the section headings (Life/Works). You can also click edit on the top-right. That will allow you to edit the entire article. Hope that helps :). Femke (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
.png)
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 Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
. 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:Sustainable energy for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 14:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Redesigning the featured, good, and article assessment icons. Pbrks (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
; see Talk:Sustainable energy for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 09:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
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 Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 20:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
. 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:Paris Agreement for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
; see Talk:Paris Agreement for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 07:21, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
.png)
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Miscellaneous