Talk:IPCC Third Assessment Report

(William M. Connolley 17:26, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)) I've created this page because I want to link to it. At the momemnt I'm a bit unsure how big it should be. I think that most text should be on the IPCC page as at present.

Titular acronym

This shouldn't have an acronym for a title. I'm just not sure whether to move it to Third Assessment Report, IPCC Third Assessment Report, or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report. I'm leaning toward the second. Opinions? —Simetrical (talk) 06:08, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 09:46, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Well as long as the short form remains to link to I don't much mind. But... the first is out (other bodies might also issue third reps), the second has an acronym in the title :-) and the third is wordy but probably best.

The second includes an acronym, of course, but the third is just insanely wordy. I mean, seriously: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report. Forget it, I'm going with the second. —Simetrical (talk) 23:46, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Stub type

(William M. Connolley 09:46, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Re the stub type: there is some history on that; Icairns changed it. I thought sci was better than geo. Possibly (if stub types are to proliferate) we could have a report-stub too. Or an intergovernmental bodies stub. OR a climate stub. I couldn't decide so did nothing.

Nevertheless, climatology has no relation to geography, not by any stretch of the imagination. I have to wonder what was going through Icairns' head.

Report-stub is too narrow, and intergovernmental-bodies-stub is way too narrow. Climate, I think, also probably doesn't make it; the stub categories page says that new stubs should be created only for categories with a hundred pages or more, although that rule seems to be completely ignored (Bush-stub?!).

Ah, I have it! The IPCC was founded by the UN, right? We can use the UN-stub! Or do you think the connection is too tenuous? —Simetrical (talk) 23:58, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 21:13, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)) There are quite a lot of climate pages: glossary of climate change (and that only includes the ch ones, by and large)

Seems to me like rather a lot of those are only tangentially related to climate, and wouldn't deserve a climate-stub tag if they were stubs. But I've broadened the UN-stub, so now it's definitely suitable for use for this page. —Simetrical (talk) 22:14, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite

I tried to fill this out as much as possible, make it a stand-alone article with links to other subjects (including "See Also" as not including things referenced or listed in the article, and as many inline references/links to other wiki pages as possible in the article), and for it to be accurate and descriptive. I included references to the WGs that handle different subjects, named for what they described the groups as being on their "about" page. For example, their current organization lists 3 WG and the TF, I tried to pull out short descriptions based upon what they said. Trouble is, their own link for WG III isn't working....... Sln3412 07:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)