Talk:2022 in climate change

Diff to discussion of LIST CRITERIA
FYI [] NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Note re large 8 August 2022 post
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.
 * 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)