Wikipedia talk:IPCC citation/AR5

Propose converting to a project advice page

Propose moving this to WP:WikiProject Climate change as a project WP:ADVICEPAGE. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Only just noticed this page. I would make a suggestion. I think that hammering out the details of IPCC citations is too narrow for the advice page. The CC project page should mention that there a recommended way of handling IPCC citations at WP:IPCC citation. I think the differences (and scope of specific discussion) between the several ARs is small enough (vanishingly so?) that they can all be handled at WT:IPCC citation. Perhaps this Talk page can be moved there, but I'm not certain if Talk pages can be moved independently of the page they hang off of. This might be a "technical move". Alternately, it might be simpler to just copy the contents of this page to there, and delete this page. Perhaps not entirely kosher (it loses the history), but I wouldn't object, and I doubt anyone else would notice. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The project can organize advice page, or pages, or sub pages, in countless ways. Big scope, little scope, its just a matter of wordsmithing the appropiate glue. I realize it may not seem intuitive to everyone, but it does seem like citation guidelines for Topic X would most naturally be housed and hosted by Project X. We can have more than one advice page; we can have sections in an advice page. It seems - to me - the intuitive thing to do. Would putting it there create a problem? (In case you don't know, the project guidelines say Projects don't own anything and have no greater "clout" in determining consensus.) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

My view is that material that specific to a Topic X should at that Topic, not a higher level project, the "topic" here being "IPCC citation". (More precisely: how to cite IPCC reports.) Note that just because Topic X is within the scope of Project Y does not mean it should be handled at the top level of the Project. Which is not a matter of "wordsmithing the appropiate glue"; some things should not be glued together into a gigantic tarball. The appropriate "wordsmithing" is to structure matters into manageable modules, and at appropriate levels. The problem in putting this section into a Project level discussion is that it gets mixed into other discussions, to the confusion and detriment of all. The appropriate place for discussing a topic "X" is (generally) at "Talk:X". (I say "generally", as sub-topics, especially where they strongly parallel, or may not have much discussion specific to them) are often consolidated into a higher level. Thus the discussion that can be reasonably expected on theAR5/AR4/FAR/SAR/TAR/AR6 subtopics is best consolidated under IPCC_citation.) To the extent that IPCC citation is included within a Project it is sufficient to have link pointing here. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I can live with this for now. If project activity takes off, participants might generate more things to say about citation. In that case, it may make sense to renew this proposal. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

It seems you have missed my key point: the proper place to discuss WP:IPCC citation is at WT:IPCC citation. And the level of project activity is entirely irrelevant. Let me put it this way: by the logic that citing sources is an extremely important aspect of the project, should project level discussion also incorporate the discussions at Help:Citing sources? Or should it just point the interested editors to the ancillary topics? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Please allow me to rephrase my prior comment. I understand you're determined that your opinion is 100% correct and I agree to not argue about it now. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

inline for full volumes

FYI, if it's an oversight, please add inline citation template for the full volumes so those entries follow the same pattern and look like the entries for the subparts. If its intentional, please add add an explanatory note to aide the unwary's understanding. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is a deliberate omission. I'm still pondering on some aspects of how to handle that. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks JJ for all your work on IPCC citations! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. And there's a bit more; I don't if you noticed I added a test/review page. And a good thing, as I just noticed that some of the URLs are screwed up somewhere enroute, so I'm trying to figure out the easiest way out of this little contremps. Probably just hunker done and do a spell of manual editing. Eventually it will all be prefect? :-} ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Someday, I can imagine a userscript that presents a pop up box from which the user can select the proper IPCC entry, input a page number, and voila! The rest happens without newbie user braincells exploding. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Classifying this page

I just tagged this "essay". As you may know, there is a confusing mishmash between info pages, help pages, essay pages etc. In terms of policy and guideline, they have all been classified as the equivalent "clout" of an essay. That's the technical letter of policy. (WP:CONLEVEL). However, for a while I was really working hard at doing assessment and classification of our thousands of pages in these categories. My experience is that "on the street" there is a perception of a bit more clout for "information pages" than mere essays. We could discuss elevating this to an information page, but it seems reasonable (to me) to get some broad input for that. And in any case, I'm not going further on this now since the whole thing is still being developed. (My compliments on the AR5 formatting, JJ, it's much more user friendly than the AR4 version.) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)