Talk:Climate change in popular culture

Nearly all of the text in Climate fiction is bibliographic in nature, and is therefore redundant with the sections of this article. The little bit from "climate fiction" that actually says something about the genre in general could easily be transported here.

The reason to merge from that article into Climate change in popular culture is because there are a few words here that do not easily fit into the other article - the section about video games. That's not "fiction", and that's why we should remove the redundancy of these two article by merging from there to here. For that matter, maintaining the article here allows for addition of new categories, e.g., music and visual art. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

My initial reaction was merge, but most of the content of "Climate change fiction" belongs with literature rather than popular culture. Indeed many of the works discussed in the "Climate change fiction" article are dystopian, but not all, so a full merge with that article would not be correct either. Most, if not all of the fiction section, of "Climate change in popular culture" isn't really popular culture.

The use of "bibliographic" above is eccentric, but I'm presuming that the writer must want the article (Climate fiction) to be focussed mainly on literary theory. Rwood128 (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you meant to link Climate fiction, rather than the science article Climate change. [Corrected]

Our guidelines talk about lists of various types of works as "bibliographies". These include lists of films as well as books, etc. See

• WP:MOS-BIBLIO
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies#Recommended structure

In reply to your reasoning, thanks for input, and I disagree because nothing should be read into the current state of the other article. After being ignored for along while, the other article (Climate fiction) is nonetheless in an early state of evolution, so we shouldn't reason our way to the best way to present this material based on its current condition. Instead we should consider the material and pick the way that avoids redundancy and maximizes reader comprehension and usefulness. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

A discussion of novels isn't bibliographical. I'm puzzled. A bibliography indeed is a list. Perhaps the discussion is too brief, but as you say "we shouldn't reason our way to the best way to present this material based on its current condition". But the above suggests that you are only vaguely aware of what bibliographies are and have never created one. See for an example of a real bibliography. Rwood128 (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Not long ago (earlier today in fact) the text at Climate fiction you characterize as "discussion" was mostly unreferenced and at that time appeared to be WP:Original research. If the text that was unsupported at that time had been purged, all that would be left is the material appropriate for a bare-bones list, i.e., a bibliography. I even managed to say that without subtle digs intended to snub others. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. NewsAndEventsGuy, I was doing my best to be polite, but I had great difficulty understanding the way that you were using the word "bibliographical". I realized that what I said could be read as a snub but I did my best. I only gave the example because I genuinely thought you were confused. I suppose I might have read your earlier reference to guidelines equally as a snub, or condescending, but actually it didn't register.

As citations were provided (or speedily added, or corrected) your explanation still doesn't make sense to me.

I thought that I was being helpful by adding valid material. This is one of the most unwelcoming places I've ever encountered while editing. Rwood128 (talk) 18:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

In some respects while editing an encyclopedia such as this one, you may need to develop a "thick skin", Rwood128. This may especially apply to areas that are controversial and where people often take things "the wrong way". You have my respects for sticking to your guns and expressing your opinions as best anyone can. So please try not to become disillusioned, as we're all here to improve this reference work, even though that may not seem so sometimes. – [User:Paine Ellsworth|Paine Ellsworth]]^CLIMAX! 19:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[

Paine Ellsworth Thanks. Rwood128 (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

And I appreciate your adding references over there. Besides a thick skin, one also needs a constant appreciation for the fact that we edit in a dynamic environment, so impressions formed in one hour might lead to statements in a later hour without realizing the impression is no longer up to date. That's what happened here. There's also the tendency to assume what is obvious to each of us (sometimes unconsciously) is equally obvious to everyone else. That assumption is frequently at the heart of bruised feelings. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. (edit conflict) At first I was neutral on this merge idea, and it still may be a good idea; however, after seeing what the cli-fi article was before all the fleece was sheared and the talk-page discussions, it may be a better idea to continue to develop Climate fiction into a good article. – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 18:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to hear something other than a like/dislike WP:!vote, but I'm afraid I don't. If there is logical reasoning in your opinion Paine, please help by elaborating? Thanks.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, essentially I did find much of the article before it was sheared interesting, even though a good deal of it was obviously OR and COI and some of it addressed readers personally with words like "you", much like one would expect on a talk page, but not in an encyclopedic article. Even though it's been stripped of that, I feel that some of the deleted material might still be good and just needed proper referencing. As I know nothing about the subject, I hope that editors will see the sometimes subtle difference between COI and "expert advice" from those closely associated with the subject. As long as the improvements meet the requirements of the pillars of Wikipedia and associated policies and guidelines, what Cli-fi needs is expert guidance on the subject. If and when that is done, it is my estimation that Cli-fi could be turned into a good article. – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 20:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I've been feeling guilty, because I feel that I confused matters by wrongly suggesting that the "Main article" for "Climate fiction" was "Climate change in popular culture" (when I added the link banner). The present of high culture authors in the fiction section of the popular culture article confused me. See my earlier opposition to the merge, on the grounds that the the article, "Climate fiction", does not actually deal with works of popular culture.

I also wondered about the earlier cut material, but have only once given it a very brief scan. However, I think Paine Ellsworth's opinion should be taken seriously. Rwood128 (talk) 09:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't the merge banner be removed as there doesn't appear to be any support for a merge? Rwood128 (talk) 12:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)