Category talk:Climate history

Archived renaming discussion

The proposal on WP:CFD to rename from "Category:History of climate" to something else was not accepted.

Shouldn't this be "history of the climate" or "climatic history" - SimonP 04:05, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

• I vote Keep as is. Climatic history sounds like what a novel has somewhere in the middle. I don't see how adding an article helps the title much. --ssd 00:11, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - "Climate" is used as a proper noun in many cases - e.g., "Climate Change" (never "Change of the Climate"). Climate history would also be in keeping with usage (rather than Climatic History). Guettarda 15:48, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Much better than the alternative suggestions to my ear. Philip 20:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I find the current name a bit awkward although the suggested names have problems as well. I'd support a rename if someone came up with a really good alternative. If not, I guess it's a keeper. RedWolf 06:00, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think the best name would be "The History of Climate" (with capitals), but that would be against the rules. 22:44, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Rename (pending an agreeable suggestion) I think a rename would be good, as the current name doesn't sit too well with me. The new suggestions don't really do it for me either. Here are some other ways you guys might want to consider--I'm just throwing these out there and tried to make them as different as I could (I don't have a favorite but they might spark some ideas or help consensus): "history of earth's climate" "global climate history" "historical climate changes" "paleoclimatology" "global climate periods". —Ben 11:13, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And come to think of it, this is at the crux of my problem with the climate articles (in terms of naming conventions and structure). Rhetorically, "climate change" is a perfect category for documented events. The "little ice age" was "a climate change." The "Medieval warm period" is a "climate change." But then again, "Snowball earth" is a theory of "climate change," not an actual climate change (right?). The problem is, you can't say "Climate Change is the current change in climate." Nor can you say "Global Warming is the study of the warming of the globe." The nomenclature in climatology is very messed up. —Ben 11:36, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. None of the alternatives are clearly better. It is clear enough as is. -Willmcw 22:25, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

• How about Category:History of Earth's climate (although I don't necessarily like the apostrophe either) or Category:Climatic history of Earth? RedWolf 04:19, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Merge Category:Paleoclimatology here?

• Set up merge. Reasons: categories are essentially redundent, but "History of climate" is more inclusive. Category:Paleoclimatologists should be retained and point here. Category:Climate change should be disentangled; either both should be valid categories in Category:Climatology and the present cat also in Category:Historical geology, or present cat should go into Climate change (as this is more likely to be a first-stop category) in addition to Historical geology categories. Dysmorodrepanis 03:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)