Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) at 21:41, 27 April 2010 (→Nominated for AFD: rv: why). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

	Blogging (inactive)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blogging, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BloggingWikipedia:WikiProject BloggingTemplate:WikiProject BloggingBlogging

Environment Start‑class

This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

	This article was nominated for deletion on January 8 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.
	on 26 april 2010 at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Climate Audit (2nd nomination)

Changes made by Chris Chittleborough 16 February 2006

• Trimmed stuff about McIntyre which is not relevant to the blog - that stuff can go in the Stephen McIntyre article - most of what remains is there to explain the blog's name
• Trimmed description of RealClimate -- details should go in that article not here
• Removed Environmental Science & Technology from list of press references -- it is a specialised magazine, not part of "the press".
• Moved sentences around, changed paragraph divisions.
• Mentioned that the blog allows comments. Did not mention that comments are open to anyone who doesn't trigger SpamKarma, though certain non-climate topics (eg., entropy) are vigorously censored.
• Removed POV attack on McIntyre whose only source was articles (actually a collection of ad-hominen attacks) in ES&T by Paul Thacker, a journalist. (The POV attack was added by User:216.143.112.239, an IP which tracks to ES&T or its publisher.)

Still a stub?

I did a minor cleanup today. Do readers think this is still a stub? Pete Tillman 19:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the website

Climate Audit is currently down with a 403 error. I haven't read any official news yet but the word on many blogs and internet forums is that they are being DOSed. Does anyone else have any further information? --Jayson Virissimo 02:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

My guess it is the Slashdot effect. --Kim D. Petersen 05:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Acronym expansions needed

User:KimDabelsteinPetersen made a nice addition (re Y2K climate-record errors), but we need expansions for these cryptic acronyms:

• USHCN
• GISS

Thanks in advance, Pete Tillman 18:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirecting

User:Atmoz recently redirected this article to Stephen McIntyre's page. The policy and usual practice for articles like this seems ambiguous. E.g., there is Philip Plait#Badastronomy.com as Atmoz states. But there is also Pharyngula_(blog) and PZ_Myers. Given that the article existed separately for almost all its lifetime (4 years, I'd suggest that the redirect be discussed first. SausageLady (talk) 07:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted it. It seems to be no discussion about this on this page or anywhere else. Nsaa (talk) 14:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

This blog can be compared to existing articles like RealClimate, Bishop Hill (blog) and probably many more, and it's covered by our policy at Misplaced Pages:Notability_(web)#Criteria. Nsaa (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

This blog is highly notable, why was it redirected? mark nutley (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

rv why

There is no consensus nor has there ever been to merge these two articles mark nutley (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Well there most certainly was a consensus - otherwise the merge wouldn't have happened (and lasted for so long). And (just a hint) - you are looking at the wrong talk-page for both the old discussion - and for starting a new one. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you point me to it please, and remember consensus can change mark nutley (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it can, following discussion. Where is the discussion that shows a change of consensus? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

And were exactly is this consensus which allowed for the merge? mark nutley (talk) 08:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact that it stood unchanged William M. Connolley (talk) 08:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

So there is in fact no discussion which lead to a consensus for this merge? Now were did i see something like this happen before? Well if it was not discussed per policy and was merged without a clear consensus then it`ll have to be undone mark nutley (talk) 08:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact that no one challenged it in over a year is evidence of consensus. Mergers happen all the time without votes. If no one takes issue with an action, the assumption is that there's consensus for it. Guettarda (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest we see if there is a consensus at present. I'd rather keep this as a redirect: I say one medium-length article is notably better for both readers and editors than two shorter articles. That's why I was happy to see the two merged. Cheers, CWC 11:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree. I don't think we need two very short articles when one longer one would do the job better. Guettarda (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Nominated for AFD

I've just nominated it for Deletion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Climate Audit (2nd nomination) since so many think so (either delete or redirect, the same in practice). Nsaa (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

As you wish, though it seems a waste of time. I've restored it to its default statae while the AFD proceeds William M. Connolley (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

For copyright reasons, you can't delete this article without also deleting Stephen McIntyre, since content from here has been merged into that article. If that's what you intend, please nominate both articles. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 23:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like ATren has reverted this but it was beneath his dignity to trouble himself to discuss it. The default state is the version that has been around for more than a year and that is the version that should stay pending the AFD William M. Connolley (talk) 21:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Start-Class Environment articles
• Unknown-importance Environment articles