Talk:Climate apocalypse

Relationship with article on collapsology

 * By the way, should we pay a bit more attention to the article on Collapsology? Is it a suitable parent article? EMsmile (talk) 10:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think that should be considered a parent article. It seems to me more like societal collapse is the parent and both "collapsology" and "climate change and civilizational collapse" are its children. Collapsology in particular seems to refer to a self-given name used by a relatively small group of academics - one which does not seem to include a fair number of the people cited on the civilizational collapse article. I.e. Michael Mann would definitely disagree vehemently with such a moniker or getting included in an article named as such. The "climate endgame" researchers may well agree with getting called "collapsologists", but I doubt we can make that decision without seeing themselves or someone else state it in WP:RS.
 * Having said that, it's true that we should ultimately pay more attention to that article - simply because it appears to have many of the same issues with notability, reliability (whole paragraphs unreferenced or with the most dubious references) and scope which had consistently plagued the current article. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 11:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Cleanup
Okay, merge or not, I am reading this article and some of this stuff isn't too great. Here is an example of what I mean:
 * Political conversations about climate apocalypse (or similar terms) tend to describe how preventing it in the future would bring zero value for today, therefore the value of doing something today is zero.

Like, what? "Conversations tend to describe"? I can't even tell who this is supposed to be attributed to. Are we, the encyclopedia, saying that the value of doing something today is zero? Or are we saying that "conversations" are saying that? Whose conversations? This is cited to a primary source so it's somewhat sus to me that we should even be saying that (just repeating their claims?). jp×g🗯️ 11:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've boldly removed that paragraph as it doesn't fit the new scope of this article which is about the term and its usage, not about speculative content about what humanity is doing or not doing and why not. EMsmile (talk) 14:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @JPxG I am not sure how closely you have looked at this talk page and article's history, but the article used to have far, far more issues of this kind only a few months earlier. Now, there is an ongoing, still-unresolved discussion a few posts up as to whether this article should be kept more-or-less as is, and be very narrowly focused on how this phrase is used in language, or if there are not enough reliable sources to support even that scope, and it should simply be merged to one of the better articles on the subject. I doubt it's possible to discuss this article's "cleanup" without acknowledging this reality first. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 14:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)