Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climate change

For WikiProjects that participate in rating articles, the banners for talk pages usually say something like:

• "This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale."

There is a proposal to change the default wording on the banners to say "priority" instead of "importance". This could affect the template for your group. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposal to update wording on WikiProject banners. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 19:40, 6 December 2025 (UTC) (on behalf of the WikiProject Council)

Whale has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 05:06, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

I've revived a discussion at Talk:REDD and REDD+#Split article into REDD+ and UN-REDD Programme about whether to re-split the UN-REDD Programme material out from REDD and REDD+ into a separate article (and leave a summary + {{main}} link in the parent article).

Input from interested editors is welcome. Please comment on the article talk page section linked above so the discussion stays in one place. Yourecoveredinbees (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

I see that Grokipedia has just written https://grokipedia.com/page/Climate_change_in_Turkey so I asked Le Chat to compare it with our Climate change in Turkey, which hasn’t been scrutinised much by other humans recently as far as I know. Le Chat gave me a lot of detail and somewhat surprisingly summarized:

“Grokipedia excels in scientific depth, historical context, and sectoral/regional analysis, while Wikipedia is stronger on recent societal, legal, and international developments. If you’re interested in the science or policy specifics, Grokipedia is the more robust resource. If you want the latest on activism or public opinion, Wikipedia fills that gap.”

I am going to delve into the differences to find out how much is true. I suspect that Grokipedia has found a few useful sources I have missed. I may be some time - if you are interested in how I get on ask at Talk:Climate change in Turkey

I would NEVER attempt this without having a good knowledge of the subject as no doubt there are mistakes in Grokipedia which may be subtle. If I was a conspiracy theorist I might say that Elon has put in far too much detail and subheadings such as “Attribution of Changes” to deliberately confuse people. If any of you have ideas or are doing anything similar I would be interested to hear. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:32, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

From preliminary results from first hour I would definitely recommend this if you have time as, although their article is biased in a silly way and relies somewhat on very old or unreliable sources, I have already picked up a couple of new sources and got ideas about aspects to add. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:03, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I wrote something about this around cop: https://caad.info/analysis/newsletters/cop-look-listen-issue-09-20-nov-25/ -- I am also going to be doing some more work in the coming months as part of the coalition -- its pretty clear that they set up the source filter for climate topics to introduce discourses of doubt, even when there isn't a good non-political reason to do it, Sadads (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@Sadads Thanks for that info. As the science of climate change is accepted by almost everyone here in Turkey it is a bit strange and pointless for that to be questioned. Climate change is a very low priority issue here - most ordinary people would rightly be more concerned with other things, for example the cost of living as we have over 30% inflation. A more sophisticated attempt to bias “Climate change in Turkey” would focus on money not the science.

I will be interested to hear what more you get up to and anything related to Wikipedia and COP31. Media coverage of climate change will probably increase here later in the year as we get nearer the conference. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:21, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

So the most recent pivot in climate disinformation (and we are seeing this in all communications markets where there is research such as Brazil, France and Spanish speaking Latin America, alongside the English markets) : its about making you doubt how much your other fellow citizens in x territory, thing that addressing climate change is one of the top priorities. In almost every survey, for every country you see 75+% commitment to urgency for addressing climate change BUT if you introduce enough loud objections to climate actions (I.e. it slows down the economy, or that action is too helpful for [x maligned corporate interest] or [y colonial force]) decision makers delay action, or get lost in addressing these minority critiques. The kind of attack you are describing is constent with what we are seeing Elsewhere (Brazil has the most studied market for this, and its mostly funded by Agro-industrial interests describing climate action as undermining national economic sovereignty). Sadads (talk) 14:17, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Seeing the way that Grokipedia is expanding it seems likely they will soon have more articles than enwiki unless they deliberately limit the number of articles. Also their articles tend to be long I think. So I think we should be concentrating on quality rather than quantity. Need new editors with brainpower and time - for example how to contact and attract newly retired people? People who are forbidden to do paid work - Afghan women? People waiting for asylum claims to be decided? Young people who know how to use AI tools safely but are unemployed or underemployed and want to boost their CVs? For me I guess I need to figure out what are the most important points about climate change in Turkey and distill down to explain them well whilst cutting out minor points or relegating them to footnotes. After that it will be interesting to ask AI and humans whether they think I have biased the article by my selection of what is important. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:04, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

They don’t yet have an article on “Climate change in the Democratic Republic of the Congo” so it will be interesting to see whether their v0.3 creates one in response to the creation of Climate change in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and if so how similar or different it is. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:37, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

An editor has requested that REDD and REDD+ be moved to REDD+, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Yourecoveredinbees (talk) 09:53, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

(note: sorry for the redlink in the title... the template appears to be having issues with the "+" symbol). Yourecoveredinbees (talk) 09:53, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

In my time on Wikipedia I have made 3 attempts to make a featured article(FA) and all of them failed in 2021 for the same article, which was not enjoyable. After Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey/archive3 I decided never to try again. But now that we know COP31 will be here I am wondering.

1) Do you think I should merge Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey into Climate change in Turkey and try to get it to FA?

2) My weaknesses and possible difficulties include:

a) I find it very hard to write with good “flow”, and although the Guild of Copy Editors are very good at improving sentences I suspect most of them are not much better than me in making paragraphs and sections flow better.

b) The GHG numbers are out of date in the article but rather than updating them now I would rather wait for new numbers which hopefully will come mid-April.

c) Climate Trace GHG estimates are available nowadays but I am not sure how much to write about them, and I still have no idea why their estimate for GHG from waste is so much higher than the official number.

d) My pie chart in the GHG article categorizes in what I strongly feel is a more understandable way for ordinary people. Although I don’t remember any criticism for “original research” it might happen.

d) I might need to limit my typing if I get RSI again.

e) Unfortunately it is highly unlikely anyone will update the Turkish articles.

4) Would anyone like to help me? I don’t think you would need any special knowledge or abilities - just time and persistence. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Regarding your question 1: Personally, I think the articles "climate change in country X" are very important and useful but all the content on mitigation should in my opinion be there, and not in the corresponding "greenhouse gas emissions in country X" article. I see those ones as more specific sub-articles. We've talked about this before and ended up disagreeing, I think. Many of the other "climate change in country X" articles do have a signification section on mitigation but not the Turkey article (because the mitigation content is instead located in the "GHG emissions by Turkey" article).

With regards to bringing it to featured article quality, I am not sure if it's "worth" it, given the low pageview numbers (?). But if you have the energy for it then that's great! EMsmile (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

I might still disagree with you re the top half dozen emitting countries, but for the rest I now think you are right so have proposed Talk:Climate change in Turkey#Merge Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey into here? Chidgk1 (talk) 13:52, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

@EMsmile As you know nobody objected so I have merged - if you or anyone else wants to merge any of the other medium emitters such as Australia or UK I doubt anyone will object Chidgk1 (talk) 07:00, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

As you know we have 3 articles rated “top importance” but “start class” namely Coal power in China, Fossil fuel subsidies and Fossil fuels lobby. Students are often good at expanding articles and there are plenty of English language reliable sources they can easily find such as https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-coal-power-drops-in-china-and-india-for-first-time-in-52-years-after-clean-energy-records/ and https://energyandcleanair.org/publication/built-to-peak-coal-power-expansion-runs-out-of-room-in-china/

I probably asked @Ian (Wiki Ed) a while ago but forgot his answer. I think us old-timers need new blood - anyone got any ideas how we can lure young people into this castle - uh I mean project of course Chidgk1 (talk) 07:23, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I think a list of articles that would be good places that students could contribute might be helpful. Then we can point instructors running classes in the area to the list - not as a place that they must pick from, but as easy places to make an impact. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I guess Wikipedia:WikiProject Climate change/Small to medium tasks would be the most accessible place to post about it. A more technical solution would be using parameter "attention" of Module:WikiProject banner in Template:WikiProject Climate change, which would automatically populate a subcategory in Category:Articles_needing_attention; see, for example, Template:WikiProject Africa and Category:Africa articles needing attention. fgnievinski (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

@Fgnievinski Thanks for those good suggestions but I am concerned that they would not be immediately obvious to instructors and students. What do you think about the idea below? On the technical side is there any way our project could get an alert when someone creates a Wiki Ed course which might be relevant to us, for example if the course had been tagged with our project name by WikiEd or the instructor or the course name included certain key words or phrases such as “climate change”

@Ian (Wiki Ed) In the training for educators and students are Wikiprojects mentioned? Do any other projects have a good way to communicate with them. How about I create a new subpage WikiProject Climate change/Students or WikiProject Climate change/Students and Educators or WikiProject Climate change/Wiki Ed or somesuch which could then be adopted as a standard subpage name for any other project wishing to interact with students and thus we could be specifically named in your training document as an example which generalises? If you think amending the training document in this way is a good idea what would you prefer as the subpage name?

Also as the number of courses is quite small if we just eyeball the complete list at certain times of year how could we tag relevant courses with our project name? Is it as simple as just adding our project name to their talk pages such as Wikipedia talk:Wiki Ed/University of Washington/Geographies of Energy and Sustainability (Winter 2026) and would that have any practical effect or just be ignored or overwritten? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:05, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

@Chidgk1 While we do mention WikiProjects in our training, I was thinking that if there was a subpage like that we could share it with instructors who indicate that they will be working on climate change related topics (either narrowly or broadly). I'm not sure about the mechanics of it, but I could also imagine adding an option to the course creation wizard on the Dashboard, which would allow instructors to select the list from among other options. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Climate change/Small to medium tasks seems good for this? The "Climate change in X" articles in particular should be easy enough for students to grasp. CMD (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• @Chidgk1: I have a model demo at meta:Wiki99/sustainability. The idea is to pick 99 articles for a topic, then promote those 100 for development and translation. If we were to select, develop, and translate 99 articles to establish an essential collection on climate change to recommend to everyone in the world, then what articles would make the cut? Bluerasberry (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Wikiproject members. If there are any Wikidata enthusiasts around here I'd like to request your feedback and/or support on the greenhouse gases emissions property proposal. I'm aware there is a Wikiproject climate change in Wikidata, they have already been notified. Thanks and sorry for this slightly offtopic notification. Nat (WDU) (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I commented. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I write to share with you my idea for Wikimedia Foundation to add another major Wiki platform to motivate and to involve people of all ages in international mobilization to address climate change.  Last fall, I began to explore this idea with Maryana Iskander who encouraged further consideration by Wikimedia.

To wit: “Together we can change the course of climate change.” Together we can spread knowledge of climate emergencies and of efforts to mitigate climate change with the use of the 7.4 billion smartphones, social media, and a Wiki platform.

We can share immediate knowledge of climate emergencies and of positive actions. As people are aware of endeavors underway, they will gain a sense of hope for our suffering planet and be encouraged to do what they themselves can do.

At every scale, from individuals to whole countries, initiatives are underway that can set examples for others for replication in whole or in part.

For example: seagrass protection, mangrove planting, simple gestures of adding a sweater, buying less, walking, using mass transportation, Uruguay generating over 98% of its electricity from wind, hydro, biomass, and solar, a Swedish billionaire purchasing a logging company to stop logging and protect over 400,000 acres of the Amazonian rainforest, and poor women collecting plastics from the streets of Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso. ~2026-11218-55 (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is already the world's most requested, published, accessed, and consulted information source about climate change. If anyone has information to share, then contributing to Wikipedia is almost always the most effective way to get that information to the most people and the right people with the least effort. Can you say more about the things that you want that Wikipedia does not currently provide? Bluerasberry (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello! Sounds like something to bring to https://www.appropedia.org/ maybe. Piracalamina (talk) 12:03, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I just added a section to the Uzbekistan article about Response to Climate Change, then came across this Project's template for writing a dedicated article on "Climate Change By Country". So now I'm thinking about expanding my section into a full article "Climate Change in Uzbekistan" using the template, and linking to the full article from the country page. Thoughts? Variations on this idea? Is it better to add sections to country pages or entirely separate pages? I noticed not all country pages link to their Climate Change pages, e.g., Madagascar links to Geography of Madagascar § Climate which in turn excerpts Climate change in Madagascar .... what is the ideal interlinking structure for this kind of thing? Sharp-shinned.hawk (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is an ideal. It all depends on maintenance capacity perhaps. Can we keep a subarticle sufficiently up-to-date or write it in such a way it doesn't need constant updates? For 'special cases', i.e. countries where climate change could be an existential risk like Bangladesh, the answer is likely that we should have an article climate change in Bangladesh. The World Bank publishes a Country Climate and Development Report for each region, so it's likely that all of these articles do meet notability criteria. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I suggest doing both. Sometimes when you add climate change content to a country article, you receive a lot of push-back. I experienced that for the India article, for example (some years ago). As an example: Linking from India to climate change in India in one way or another should be acceptable. But as the India article has higher pages views than the climate change in India article, it would be important to have at least some information (summary style) about climate change issues in India in the India article. Oh and are you aware of WikiProject Countries? I once tried to push for a standard section about climate change there. You can see the discussion here from 5 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries/Templates#In_which_section_is_climate_or_climate_change_meant_to_be_included? EMsmile (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

We already have a lot of those "CC in Country X" articles (see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Climate_change_by_country). I think they make sense because almost any country is affected by climate change in one way or another. They also seem to be popular as a task for students, as they're easy to set up. On the other hand, they tend to linger at low-ish pageviews, and perhaps get outdated relatively quickly. EMsmile (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I think it depends on the amount of content we have. If it's a small amount, then a section in the 'Country' article is all that's needed. If there is a larger amount of detailed content, then a [[Climate change in Gilead]] is a good idea. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

All of these responses are really helpful, thank you! I read the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries/Templates#In_which_section_is_climate_or_climate_change_meant_to_be_included also, and that was helpful guidance. For countries with a WorldBank Report, I like the idea of creating a dedicated page so that the information "sticks", and including a link to that from the country page along with some information (summary style) on that page, maybe some of the least controversial facts to protect from edit wars. I too have had pushback on some climate change edits to main pages (crops as well). Thank you everyone. Sharp-shinned.hawk (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Generative artificial intelligence#Requested move 6 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — EarthDude (Talk) 17:12, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Keeling Curve#Requested move 26 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 14:55, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Generative artificial intelligence#Requested move 6 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. HurricaneZeta alt (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2026 (UTC)