Talk:Bølling–Allerød Interstadial

Request to remove redirect
Late Glacial redirects to this page, and I don't think it should. I have seen it used for the entire Weichselian, that is the whole period from the end of the Eemian until the end of the Pleistocene. This interstadial is only a short fraction of that age. 2601:441:4900:A6E0:1C71:391E:AA64:8B75 (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The Weichselian is called the Last, not Late Glacial. However, the redirect is obviously wrong wrong as it goes from a stadial to an interstadial. The Late Glacial Period was from the end of the Last Glacial Maximum to the start of the Holocene, but we have no article for it. Hopefully, someone will create one, but for now I have created a section on the LGM article and changed the redirect to go to it. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Merge discussion 2
All of the (handful) of recent papers that use both terms say that they are completely equivalent (Last Interglacial Interstadial and Bølling–Allerød Interstadial anyway) e.g., , therefore these two articles are duplicates. If there are actual (rather than percieved) discrepancies between usage the two terms in current literature then they can just be discussed in the text rather than warranting having two articles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Support. I objected to a previous proposal mainly because I doubted whether anyone available had the expertise to conduct the merger, but if you are willing to take it on then a merger is fine. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Even if these are not exactly the same, one article on the topic with refs to the naming would be better.
 * Johnjbarton (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * support though it may be worth considering if we could bring bølling-Allerød back later as an article focussing on the European continent/northern hemisphere, where the term is from? Not entirely sure that'd be useful, but it's a thought. --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)


 * can you look at the instructions in Articles for merging. I think it would be best to make a formal proposal so that other people are notified and can contribute. Also, which article do you propose keeping and which change to a redirect? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Bolling allerod ---> last glacial insterstadial would probably be best. IMO. --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I consider "Bolling Allerod interstadial" to be the preferred title for the combined article, though which way the merge goes around doesn't really matter in that case.Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have carried out the merger yesterday, and the page had been renamed now. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 13:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Trying to make sense of climate change rates relative to ice ages
Hi! I am asking experts on this topic to take part in this discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climate_change#Resolving_the_issue_of_rapid_rates_of_change Efbrazil (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Merge the two "oscillation" pages?
Even after the recent merge, we still have Bølling oscillation and Allerød oscillation, both of which are barely referenced stubs. Do we need a formal proposal & discussion to merge those as well, or can it just be done immediately? InformationToKnowledge (talk) 13:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support merging those in also. — hike395 (talk) 06:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright, done! Considering the lack of opposition over three weeks and the clear reasoning behind the merge, I decided I might as well do it now. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Post-merge clean-up
So, I had resolved what was by far the most important issue with this article - the persistent implication that this period had represented rapid and worldwide warming, as opposed to substantial Northern Hemisphere warming, Southern Hemisphere cooling, and little net change globally - which is what the WP:RS, now cited within the article, actually say.

However, there is still a significant issue with either completely unreferenced paragraphs (usually commented out by now), or with large blocks of text that appear to be based on a single source (i.e. the entirety of the "Siberian Plain" and "North America"). Would the other editors who have taken part in the merge discussion be interested in addressing this issue?

Additionally, I also commented out some paragraphs which appear to reference events that have taken place outside of this period. I.e. anything which says "after the Last Glacial Maximum" should probably be in the Oldest Dryas article, since that was the actual period which directly followed LGM. Likewise, "centuries after B-A" (used in another paragraph) likely belongs in Younger Dryas. I have not checked the references behind those statements, though, so it's possible that the sentences are just not well-written and the actual source supports mentioning those events in this particular article. If someone else can follow up on this, I would be really grateful. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)