Talk:Climate change in Turkey

Citing the Seventh National Communication
Hello

Thanks for your updates. As you can see the Seventh National Communication at https://www.tr.undp.org/content/turkey/en/home/library/environment_energy/NC7-2019.html is very long, so we should put page numbers in the cites. So for example on page 151 it says " Climate modellings show that Mediterranean basin will be one of the regions that will be affected by the global warming trend with the increase of extreme events." So in this article I will write in my own words: "Climate models predict that extreme weather events will increase in the Mediterranean." And using the source editor I will insert after the full stop Chidgk1 (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

1.How can I insert pdf link in reference or source?
 * Ah ok perhaps I jumped ahead to the source editor too quickly. Forget that for now and just stick with the Visual Editor (the "edit" link) and do cites like at 1:20 in this short video. I can sort out page numbers later. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

2. How can I modify the reference?
 * Click the "edit" button which is not clicked at 1:27 in the video. Or ask me and I will fix it. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

3.How can I cite a reference that is already cited?
 * At 1:27 in the video he used "automatic". Instead you can do "re-use". Chidgk1 (talk) 06:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

4. How can I insert the blue link?
 * Like this Chidgk1 (talk) 06:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksitson (talk • contribs) 19:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Suggested changes to headings and structure
I suggest to change the headings and structure of this article to be in line with the template that has been proposed here for all articles of the nature "Climate change in Country X": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Climate_change/Style_guide (see also discussion on that page's talk page). Anyone has any objections? If not, who's got time to give it a go? I am slowly working away at this for all the countries but would love some collaborators. EMsmile (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Nice to see other people taking an interest in this article. It is a little different because there are not many country articles which have separate greenhouse gas articles - only 7 according to Category:Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_country - if you know which of the other 6 countries articles are in best shape please let me know so I can compare with Turkey. Anyway I will look at the guide, think about this for these Turkey articles and respond back here. I hope to put this article up for GA review soon - do you like doing GA reviews? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Some thoughts:

1) I think it was a good idea you cut the GHG excerpt down to 2 paras. In the style guide the GHG section is at the top. That may be fine for countries which don't have separate GHG articles but I think here it is better at the bottom because then any reader who is really interested and has read to the bottom can then simply continue to that article.

2) The politics section does not really fit into the guide structure so I am thinking of deleting it as politics is covered in the GHG article. What do you think?

3) Not sure this article needs a "see also" as it may already have all the links in the other sections. But feel free to add if you spot any useful links not already in the article.

4) The rest I can probably shuffle around to the structure in the guide, so I will do so (remind me if I forget). Chidgk1 (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * , thanks for your replies. I think it would be better if the section on GHG emissions was at the beginning because to me this makes the most sense. It also follows the guidance given on the WikiProject Climate Change page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Climate_change/Style_guide#Structure (it says there "This "Outline for articles" proposed below follows the IPCC suggestion of treating causes, impacts, then mitigation."). Why would you want a reader to get all the way to the bottom before pointing them to information about emissions? And I think information on politics should be mainly covered in this article and not so much in the GHG article. I disagree with splitting the politics section into adaptation and into mitigation, I think it belongs together. I've written about that in a few places in recent days, trying to find consensus... See the articles on Climate change in Canada, Climate change in Australia and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climate_change#How_do_the_articles_%22Greenhouse_gas_emissions_in_country_X%22_relate/overlap_with_%22Climate_change_in_country_X%22?  It all depends on if we can agree that the "Climate change in country X" article is the parent article (which touches on all the topics), whereas the GHG emissions article is the sub-article. - I agree that "See also" sections are very often superfluous.EMsmile (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * OK will move GHG to top but mitigation definitely belongs in the GHG article. I agree politics should just be in the one article but not sure which one - will think about that later. Where do you think politics belongs and why? Why do the articles have to be parent and child - could they not just excerpt or link to each other? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I think it's really important to think of such articles in a tree structure so that readers know where they are and where they can go to drill down further. If they exist in parallel then you end up with duplication across articles and it becomes messy. I think articles are often created haphazardly, e.g. by students, who don't look at what exists already but rather create a new article. That's OK but later it needs to be tidied up. If Climate change in Turkey is the overarching article then it needs to contain (brief) information on EVERYTHING, including politics and mitigation - but those sections can be fairly brief if a sub-article already exists, and guide people to read MORE DETAILS in the relevant sub-article(s). Using excerpts can work. I used them a lot here for example, in the overarching article on sanitation. It doesn't always work though especially if the text from the lead does not really "fit".EMsmile (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oh and you mentioned Good Article reviews earlier on. I don't have any experience with those. I think it's wonderful if someone does them but I'd be worried that it would chew up A LOT of time to be involved in one. How much time does it take, from your experience? Days and weeks of work? EMsmile (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes it takes days. No probs I will put it in the queue and someone will pick it up eventually. The advantage of you NOT doing it is that the reviewer will likely have no prior knowledge of the subject, so will more likely tag stuff which I have not explained properly - whereas you might miss it because your background knowledge would subconsciously fill in the gaps in the text. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Links in title?
Hello - it was me who did this - is there a rule or is in just a custom to have no links and what is the advantage - I think the word "in" not being bold is better. Perhaps it depends on the title what is best - I thought the links suitable for "X of/in/by Y" titles where X and Y are fairly well known and have reasonable sized articles. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is guidance on that, see here. I think my version conforms more closely with the guidance than yours. :-) "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence." (and be in bold) Also, we've done it like that for all the other 50 "Climate Change Country" articles, so it's always nice to have some consistency. Could you live with "Climate change in Turkey" in bold or do you find it very unpleasant to the eye? EMsmile (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think my version is better - but not so much better that it is worth spending too much of your time debating - anyone else have a view or would like to know why I think so? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe raise it in the WikiProject Climate Change talk page, as it would potentially affect all 50 CCC articles (CCC = climate change by country) if more people agree with your proposal than with mine? (in my understanding, we are not supposed to put wikilinked words in bold, see style guide here) EMsmile (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Is anything on the Turkish article better than this article?
is improving the Turkish article - if anyone spots anything which is better on that article please amend this article or note here - thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 06:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

New report
https://tusiad.org/tr/yayinlar/raporlar/item/11295-turkiye-de-i-klim-krizi-ile-mucadelede-orman-ekosistemleri-ve-yutak-alan-yonetimi Chidgk1 (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Köppen projection probably needs updating from a national study
but i don’t know of one yet Chidgk1 (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Chidgk1 There are newer ones from Beck et al. that take into account more realistic scenarios. I'll update it soon. Uness232 (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Great thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 08:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)