Talk:IPCC Third Assessment Report: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:14, 2 February 2005

(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)

Revision as of 21:13, 2 February 2005 edit William M. Connolley (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 65,970 edits →Stub type ← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:14, 2 February 2005 edit undo Simetrical (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 8,694 edits →Stub type Next edit →
Line 18:		Line 18:

	:: ([[User:William M. Connolley\|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)		:: ([[User:William M. Connolley\|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. —[[User:Simetrical\|Simetrical]] ([[User_talk:Simetrical\|talk]]) 22:14, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)