Talk:2022 in climate change

Proposed guidelines

This section is an excerpt from Talk:2020 in climate change § Proposed guidelines.[edit]

Proposed guidelines

This article is envisioned as one of a series documenting year-by-year occurrences pertaining to climate change. The series of articles will provide annual "snapshots" and "status updates" for future historians to determine "what was known, when" and "what happened, when".

1. Post content that is specific to a particular year. The yearly status of ongoing phenomena or actions is acceptable, but general scientific principles and expansive historical reviews are inappropriate here.
2. Make the text concise. (Background information, general principles, technical definitions, etc., should be put within citation footnotes, in the "Notes" section, or in other Wikipedia articles.)
3. Though Wikipedia is not a newspaper, individual events that were important in the then-current year may be appropriate.
4. Keep each entry brief, ideally a sentence or two.
5. Keep content organized in meaningfully titled sections (listed below)—not one long list.
6. Within each section, strive to arrange entries chronologically.
7. Strive to maintain section titles consistent in articles from year to year.

Initial section structure:

• Summaries — (prominent-source surveys putting the year in perspective)
• Measurements and statistics — (raw numerical values)
• Natural events and phenomena — (natural occurrences contributing to or resulting from climate change)
• Actions and goal statements (actions by humans; subsections:)

• Science and technology (e.g., measurement techniques, renewable energy technical advances, expeditions, etc.)
• Political, economic, legal, and cultural actions (causing or resulting from climate change)
• Mitigation goal statements — (e.g., climate emergency declarations, NDCs, net zero pledges, ...)
• Adaptation goal statements — (statements re coping with expected effects of climate change)

• Public opinion and scientific consensus — (scientific consensus studies, studies of public perceptions, etc.)
• Projections — (predictive estimates of future causes, effects, etc.)
• Significant publications — (major publications by prominent sources)
• See also — (links to other Wikipedia articles)
• Notes — (e.g., technical explanations not suitable for body text)
• References — (place full citations in bottom section, to keep narrative wikitext more compact)
• External links

—RCraig09 (talk), begun 06:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Diff to discussion of LIST CRITERIA

FYI [[1]] NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Note re large 8 August 2022 post

@Prototyperspective: Thanks for your large contribution to this article today. I urge you to use the name of a specific publication when referring to a source ("a study published in Nature Climate Change concluded that... ") rather than just saying "A study suggests...". My suggested approach conforms to the established format of the list, confirms credibility of the source, and avoids any suggestion of MOS:WEASEL.
Also, It's easier for other editors to review your submissions if you make them more incrementally, one sentence or paragraph at a time. And of course, in list articles, brevity in each submission is important. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Done, hope it's okay now.

There may be some items of 2022 in science that could or should be added here, maybe all of them – I just didn't want to make the article too lengthy, especially as one can't easily filter items by some criteria (maybe more sections would be useful). This is just in case you or somebody wants to add (any of) them.

For the proposed guidelines this may be relevant: Talk:2020 in science#Inclusion criteria and routine addition of entries (e.g. of weekly science reviews).

Just another note: I'm not sure if mentioning the journal name is good because it can easily be viewed at the ref and may give the reader the impression that which particular journal it appeared in is more important than it is and I prefer large edits for reviewing rather than many small ones – for example because bot edits and minor edits can make the multi-diff (since last seen) very cluttered. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Prototyperspective. There are a lot of "judgment calls" in list articles. I'm finding I'm contributing less content to the 2022 article than I did to 2021 since the earlier article got a bit longer than I expected. —RCraig09 (talk) 23:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)