Talk:Global cooling/Archive 1

Removed We don't know...
(William M. Connolley 17:58, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)) I've made some tweaks, and entirely removed

"We don't know what has triggered past continental glacial periods, but recent studies indicate ice ages may start and end extremely abruptly so it probably would be quickly apparent if a glacial period has begun. But in 1975 it was also apparent that temperatures had been going down."

which has little value. Past glaciation is tied to milankovitch; what recent studies are referred to?, t trends have been discussed above and don't need repeating.


 * (SEWilco 09:50, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC))
 * As the last sentence indicates, I was still speaking in the context of the mid-70s, about the cooling which ended then. "recent studies" is anything in the past 25 years, but there certainly have been plenty in the past 5-10 years about the sudden transitions to and from glaciation periods.  Apparently the phrasing needs to emphasize the 1970s history section.


 * The structure of this piece is
 * General coverage of Global Cooling as a subject.
 * Past history of the 1970s peak of concern about cooling.
 * Dismissal of 1970s state due to warming and better science.
 * Conclusion emphasizing current level of understanding and connect back to the beginning by emphasizing that the logic used in 1975 fails because we have not become increasingly colder.

Orbital variation
(SEWilco 04:00, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)) OK, so you're certain the recent pattern of orbital variation is at an end. I was trying to leave the ice age details in that other article. So when the next ice age starts, it will be less neccesary to update more than just one page :-)

(William M. Connolley 08:45, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)) No great hurry then...

I've removed "slow" from the warming trend... since its faster than the cooling trend, which someone (I wonder who) described as "abrupt".

I've revised the order of some paras, the quote from your history site is now in the general intro where I think it belongs. Etc.

Article needs less POV. It makes valid points already, without adding insults.

Global Warming is false!
For the past 2 years now, winter has been colder than ever where I live. Andros 1337 21:38, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * So what? The topic here is global warming, not "warming where Andros lives." Where I live, winters have been warmer. Climate researchers, however, look at more than merely "the weather where Andros lives" or "the weather where Sheldon Rampton lives." To measure global warming, they study temperatures throughout the planet. --Sheldon Rampton 21:51, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * For much of the world, the temperatures have been much cooler since late 2002. Global warming is only as "accepted" as global cooling was in the 70s. At that time it was said to be widespread common knowledge, just like they say today of global warming. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.72.224.118 (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC).


 * I thought the title of the article was Global Cooling -- not Global Warming. --The Outhouse Mouse 15:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought this thread had been dead for nearly two years... --Stephan Schulz 19:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Just a side note. The weather has been colder everywhere I have lived too, for the past 2 years. Southern Turkey, Cyprus, Missouri (USA). However, Northern Turkey is suprisingly warm for this time of year. I should be knee-deep in snow by now. The weather is getting quite interesting. SadanYagci 23:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Just even more of a side note. Global warming or cooling is not decided by how hot or cold it is. The theory is in decimals of degrees. Gavinthesavage 19:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Would not such a theory then be invalid, since it has been notably cooler where I live as well? Even if it's in decimals of degrees, it has been cooler rather than warmer.  Cargocontainer 17:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Introduction
The version I fixed was inaccurate and badly written. If you don't like how mine is phrased then fix it. If you prefer to use the other as a basis for your edits then feel free. Someone is going to fix it though and if you can't be bothered, then I will. In any case, spare us your imperious reverts.--JonGwynne 19:11, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 21:16, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)) This is stupid. The version there was accurate as was, you have just added your POV. You are being impolite by not marking your reverts as such. You have failed to point to any inaccuracies. Starting an edit war on this page while the Requests for comment/William M. Connolley is in progress is pointless provocation.


 * The previous version is inaccurate. For example, "global cooling" isn't a "concern", it is a theory.  The use of "was" is inappropriate since it still is a theory - although most people consider it obsolete in the light of new research.  Oh, wait...  I pointed out that fact in the new version of article.  How about that?  Now what was this about a POV you claim I added to it?  I notice you're very free with your unquantified and unsubstantianted allegations.  And while we're on the subject, in your comments you use the phrase "this is stupid".  I would like you to explain exactly what it is you think is stupid.  Because if you're referring to me, my edit or my raising of this issue...  wouldn't that be regarded as a personal attack?  I mean, not that I really care what you think of me, I just mention it because you're sure quick to accuse other people of making personal attacks against you (even when they're not).  Are you unwilling to hold yourself to the same standards?  In any case, you're certainly the last one here to be lecturing other people on politeness - the general practice is to learn and practice something before you start trying to pass it on to other people.  And before we leave the subject of unsubstantiated claims, how do you figure I'm "starting an edit war" by correcting misstatements and pointing out clearly that the theory of global cooling is obsolete so you won't throw a fit and engage in your typical knee-jerk-reversions?  Is it because I mentioned Global Warming?  The only reason I did that was to provide a place to add a link to same.  If you want to take it out, feel free.  If you want to say something like "The theory is generally considered to be obsolete.", that would be fine.  That's how a most of the people here seem to think wikipedia is supposed to work.  Person A comes in and makes some changes to an article, then someone else comes along and makes changes to the changes.  Person C comes along...  That's how the articles grow, evolve and are improved.  Persistent and unnecessary reversions screws up this process.--JonGwynne 22:33, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the introduction to what it said previously, with the addition of a link to Stephen Schneider who wrote a book in 1976 on Global Cooling called "The Genesis Strategy" and wrote an introduction to another called "The Cooling" by Lowell Ponte. William Connelley is already on parole for reverting without explanation, and has a well deserved reputation for censoring statements that clash with his political beliefs. --DiamondGeezer 19:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted your stuff. I called it "traditional nonsense", which is correct. It is traditional to misrepresent the GS. Have you ever even read the GS? There is something about it on my page: http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/schneider-genesis.html. Your misrepresentation of my position won't help you. It is not correct (as the body of the article demonstrates) that many scientists were predicting cooling. William M. Connolley 20:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC).

PDO
I removed:


 * A significant event was the discovery in 1997 of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) having undergone regime shifts during the time periods when temperature patterns changed...

This isn't particularly significant; describing it as such is POV. PDO doesn't feature much in describing 20C T change. Putting it in this article makes even less sense. William M. Connolley 17:45:08, 2005-07-13 (UTC).

Fiction
This may or may not be off topic. I have 2 Science Fiction novels, both from the 1960s (The Ice Schooner by Michael Moorcock first published in 1996 and The World in Winter by John Christopher, 1962) which are concerned with a new ice age starting on earth. Might there be a point in having a section on fiction inspired by the idea of cooling Earth? I don't think it really says anything even about the public perception though as The Drowned World by J.G. Ballard was also publised in 1962.--NHSavage 19:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * 1996??? 1966? Never read that, at least not to remember. The world in winter I think I may have... the important point would probably be the mechanism "proposed" in the book, and whether it could be really about an ice age or more "general apocalyptic" (fitting in with Ballard, who had a whole range of them, also "the crystal world"). Who did "death of grass"? thet might have been christopher too. William M. Connolley 20:18:56, 2005-09-04 (UTC).


 * Firstly yes it was 1966 (my brain is faster then my fingers) I have now discovered there is a specific page on apocolyptic sci-fi so it is probably better just to ignore it here. FWIW World in Winter is based on the idea of a "radiation cycle in the sun" so unconnected to this idea. The Ice Schooner explanations come towards the end so I won't add in a spoiler but are not really relevant either. Death of Grass was also Christopher. --NHSavage 19:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm, thats a nice page, thanks for pointing it out. There is something to be said for some kind of "the end of the world was in peoples minds" type text on the page. Unfortunately that page is not indexed by date... William M. Connolley 20:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC).


 * I remember several different science-fiction books from the mid-1970's about the "New Ice Age". This was a very popular genre at the time, because the media was going on and on about the ice age that polution was causing.  Add to that the record winters in areas like Buffalo NY, and it is no wonder that some people thought we were making things colder.  Is it any wonder that I take the newer "belief" of Global Warming no more seriously then I took those 30 years ago?  72.161.166.113 18:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Inline vs FN
I've reverted SEW's icky footnotes stuff out. Reasons same as ever, but la la la, we have to keep people happy so here we go yet again... stop me if you're bored or anything...


 * it over-complexifies, and therefore raises a bar against non-expert users adding stuff: which I regard as very anti-wiki
 * its very hard to maintain: every time you add a new one, all the others need re-numbering
 * its 2 clicks not 1 to get to a ref
 * perhaps more incidentally, it works very badly in the history: click on one in a previous diff and you get redirected to the current version: very confusing indeed

William M. Connolley 16:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed, as with the Kyoto protocol article, inline links are preferred. Having said that, the links need to be collected at the end in a Rreference section, but not with the cumbersome and easily brken pet project that SEW is pushing. Given time, I'll try to convert his notes section into a proper reference section for the article as I plan to do with Kyoto. Vsmith 16:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Until you have time to edit them, don't delete the more detailed citations. Do you delete everything you don't have time to edit?  (SEWilco 16:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC))


 * Have you made any effort to reach consensus on the issue? Vsmith 17:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, good. BTW I *do* record my thanks to SEW for pointing out the broken care4free links and the leeds link. I've removed the latter (fixed version) because it was only there for the graphs (I forget who added it) and the interest would be in having *contemporary* graphs. William M. Connolley 16:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC).


 * Historical graphs are not relevant to a historical article? (SEWilco 16:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC))


 * You're too busy reverting to think. The graphs on that page *aren't* historical. Sigh. William M. Connolley 17:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC).


 * Looks to me like "decades of a cooling trend" refers to the text in the source material. (SEWilco 03:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC))


 * Incidentally, your description of the WP:FN system is full of errors. (SEWilco 03:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC))


 * Ahh, well that was a feeble but nonetheless welcome attempt at communication, do try a bit harder and point out these errors. Who knows, if you talk, people may listen? William M. Connolley 15:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC).

Sorry to break the thread of emergent discussion but I think I'm obliged to add a comment, so I'll cut-n-paste again to keep The Usual Suspects happy:

I've reverted SEW's icky footnotes stuff out. Reasons same as ever, but la la la, we have to keep people happy so here we go yet again... stop me if you're bored or anything...


 * it over-complexifies, and therefore raises a bar against non-expert users adding stuff: which I regard as very anti-wiki
 * its very hard to maintain: every time you add a new one, all the others need re-numbering
 * its 2 clicks not 1 to get to a ref
 * perhaps more incidentally, it works very badly in the history: click on one in a previous diff and you get redirected to the current version: very confusing indeed

Feel free to remove this bit, BTW: it serves no purpose by being here, its only necessary for me to add it! William M. Connolley 21:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC).

Well the thread of emergent discussion seems to have become rather thin in these bitter times... but I think I'm obliged to add a comment, so I'll cut-n-paste again to keep The Usual Suspects happy:

I've reverted SEW's icky footnotes stuff out. Reasons same as ever, but la la la, we have to keep people happy so here we go yet again... stop me if you're bored or anything...


 * it over-complexifies, and therefore raises a bar against non-expert users adding stuff: which I regard as very anti-wiki
 * its very hard to maintain: every time you add a new one, all the others need re-numbering
 * its 2 clicks not 1 to get to a ref
 * perhaps more incidentally, it works very badly in the history: click on one in a previous diff and you get redirected to the current version: very confusing indeed

Feel free to remove this bit, BTW: it serves no purpose by being here, its only necessary for me to add it! William M. Connolley 21:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Still thin. Hey ho. All the talk seems to be at kyoto protocol. William M. Connolley 10:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC).

SEW continues to refuse to talk. Lets quote some wise words from his own talk page:


 * WP:CITE says you must defer to the citation style used by the first major contributor, unless there is a consensus on the page to change it. See Cite sources, which says: "If contributors differ as to the appropriate style of citation, they should defer to the article's main content contributors in deciding the most suitable format for the presentation of references. If no agreement can be reached, the style used should be that of the first major contributor." I understand that you're keen on footnotes, and although I've personally never seen the attraction of them, I'm very willing to be proven wrong, and I respect that you're willing to devote time and energy to helping with WP's sourcing issues. I wish more editors would do that! But please try to see that there are advantages in other citation styles too, and edit warring to replace other styles with footnotes isn't appropriate or fair to the other editors on the page.

That was by User:SlimVirgin but I'm sure we'd all agree with her. William M. Connolley 17:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC).

The story roles on :-) SEWs notes section should be turned into an alphabetized Reference section to go with the pre-existing and consensus direct inline links style of the article. I plan to do just that when the reverting dust settles. Vsmith 21:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

OK - I just did a revert AND included SEWs notes as a needed Reference section. The new ref section needs alphabetizing and some cleanup. Also need to include some missed non-web refs. Vsmith 23:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

SEWilco, disruptive reverts, and citations
Hi. I'd like to take a straw poll before suggesting on AN/I that SEWilco be blocked for disruption. Is there anyone here, other than SEWilco, who prefers his citation format? Please speak up if so. Thanks! Nandesuka 19:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I am about to start an RFC on SEW. But don't let me stop you from blocking him :-) William M. Connolley 22:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC).


 * What is being referred to:
 * Nandesuka edit with URL-only inline links.
 * SEWilco edit with Footnotes linked citations.
 * Differences between versions
 * The differences are due to using Footnote templates to link between references and citations which describe sources. This version of the URL-only links contains replacements for many dead links(diff) which were detected during creation of the detailed citations; the dead links are interpreted by SEWilco as an indication of how infrequently URL-only links are followed and/or maintained.
 * Note that Verifiability is an official policy which prefers more citation information over less, and making it clear which statement uses which reference. Footnotes was influenced by Cite sources, Forum for Encyclopedic Standards, and WikiProject Fact and Reference Check.  SEWilco 22:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC))


 * While this is all very interesting, it does not surprise me that you prefer your own citation format. Once again, is there any editor of this article other than SEWilco that prefers the format he is continually reverting to? Nandesuka 23:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Editors of this article are relevant to style issues. My conversion was actually a citation content issue, with more detailed information on sources than only the URLs (with the same style of numbered links to source information being followed).  More recently than my conversion, the URL-only link versions acquired unlinked footnotes.  (SEWilco 01:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC))

Direct inline links are preferred over the cumbersome notes system. I personally prefer a Harvard style link rather than a bare number as it makes it easier to correlate with a reference section. But let's reach consensus first. As noted above, I have included the references from SEWs notes, but they still need some re-working. Vsmith 23:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Gee, if you prefer Harvard style then perhaps you should have used it months ago. We've been discussing the numbered link appearance which has been in use.  (SEWilco 06:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC))


 * SEWilco has been edit warring elsewhere for weeks in order to try to force editors to use footnotes. He has tried to delete or reduce information about Harvard referencing and embedded links from Cite sources and from Manual of style, and has made several misleading edits about how to format using those styles. The fact is that embedded links and Harvard referencing are both perfectly acceptable for Wikipedia, and in fact are much more popular than footnotes. WP:CITE has no preference between the three styles, except that the style used by the first major contributor should be adhered to if no agreement for change can be reached between the current editors on any given page. For more information, see WP:CITE, WP:CITE, and WP:CITE. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

SEWilco, do not impose your views on others. Slrubenstein  &#124;  &#91;&#91;User talk:Slrubenstein&#124;Talk]] 14:19, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm supporting WP:Verifiability. Do you prefer the original version full of dead links?  The "poll" purpose seems to have become misplaced.  (SEWilco 01:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC))

Q1: Are more detailed citations preferred over less detailed ones?

 * Wikipedia policy Verifiability prefers full citations.

Yes

 * 1) SEWilco 01:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Emphatically!&mdash;GraemeMcRaetalk 18:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Q2: Is it desirable to identify which statement uses which source?

 * Wikipedia policy Verifiability suggests connecting text to associated source citations.

Yes

 * 1) SEWilco 01:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) &mdash;GraemeMcRaetalk 18:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Q3: Are detailed citations preferred over URL-only citations?

 * Are more detailed citations preferred over URL-only citations?
 * Is "by 1979 global cooling was of waning interest. " preferred over "by 1979 global cooling was of waning interest ."?
 * Citation for first example above:

Yes (first example preferred)

 * 1) SEWilco 01:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) &mdash;GraemeMcRaetalk 18:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Q4: Are references linked to citations preferred?

 * Footnotes has the current best practice for linking text a to relevant citation.
 * Is "by 1979 global cooling was of waning interest. " preferred over "by 1979 global cooling was of waning interest ."?
 * Citation for first example above:
 * Citation for second example above:
 * Citation for second example above:

Yes (first example preferred)

 * 1) SEWilco 01:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) &mdash;GraemeMcRaetalk 18:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments

 * What is being referred to in this article:
 * Nandesuka edit with URL-only inline links.
 * SEWilco edit with Footnotes linked citations.
 * Differences between versions
 * The differences are due to using Footnote templates to link between references and citations which describe sources. This version of the URL-only links contains replacements for many dead links(diff) which were detected during creation of the detailed citations; the dead links are interpreted by SEWilco as an indication of how infrequently URL-only links are followed and/or maintained. (SEWilco 01:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC))

Tentative Result
The answer to the question I originally asked: "Is there anyone here, other than SEWilco, who prefers his citation format?" appears to be a resounding no. Thanks for participating in my straw poll. Nandesuka 15:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * So far nobody prefers any other format either. (SEWilco 03:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC))
 * Of course they do. Stop wikilawyering.  But, if you insist, feel free to consider included by reference the 10 names that have initiated or endorsed Requests_for_comment/SEWilco.  Nandesuka 04:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Having been asked by SEWilco to take a look at this dispute, let me offer the following: I find the current (I'm seeing this version of the article) referencing scheme unwieldy. Text is sprinkled with inline HTML links, but there's no immediately obvious connection to the list of references. The "references" section itself looks ok. I personally prefer a "footnote" style; whether it be Harvard, numbered, or something else (like e.g. the one used in Krill), doesn't matter. In my experience, numbered footnotes become a maintenance nightmare pretty quickly, so I prefer something with symbolic identifiers. I also note that of the 21 references, 7 are hosted on the web site of one of the contributors here. At least one (11) isn't listed in the references section. Finding it wasn't exactly easy; had you guys used some footnoting scheme such that the link on "[11]" had taken me to the reference listing in the "references" section (or, in this case, not done so), it would have been much easier. Finally, it's a dead link anyway, I get a "404 - not found" error when trying to access it. On the question on whether to use inline referencing (whatever scheme) at all or just give global references at the end: that depends. In any case, having only inline extlinks without the references section would be poor referencing. Having inline extlinks with no connection to the references section is still poor. In articles where I use a few main sources that I would have to reference very often, I omit in-text refs and just give them globally at the end. Selected statements backed by other sources still get in-text refs. In disputed articles, it's probably best to explicitly reference anything that causes dispute. And when I write an article on a subject I'm no expert in, I tend to reference extensively (see Krill), making it easier for others to check my work. I also try to avoid arbitrary blogs as references; I prefer more reputable sources. In summary: yes, I think the referencing in this article needs work, but I also think edit warring over this is nonsense. Try out different schemes to see how they work. Put aside your personal preferences, evaluate referencing not on personal criteria ("that was implemented by X, so it must be bad"), rather ask yourself "what's the difference between this and what I would have done? does it matter? what works better/worse than if we did it this or that way?". Cool down, all of you, and take a look at the available options. There are many features articles that show how it can be done. Lupo 08:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Lupo - thanks for your comments. I'm glad that SEW is finally talking to people (even if not us :- rather than the endless revert cycle he was on before. As you've noticed, the dispute has become rather polarised, and SEWs behaviour has contributed a lot to this; so much so that Requests for comment/SEWilco and now [] exist. After the dust from that dies down, we can try sorting out the reference format. Until then, I maintain my desire for the convenience of inline links. I accept that wiki has no ideal system: I think it needs new software to solve this properly. You say I also note that of the 21 references, 7 are hosted on the web site of one of the contributors here. Thats perceptive of you. Did you mean anything by it? Although your count is wrong: its now 8: I replaced the 404 you found with another one of mine :-) William M. Connolley 09:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC).


 * William, I didn't evaluate your web site or anything. It looks well sourced. I just noticed this fact, and when I find many references essentially going to the same place, I start to wonder. It would be better if there were more diverse places for these references. (However, I fully understand that this may not be possible; not that many people go check out scientific articles from the 1970s). But (just as an example) why not point directly to the newsweek scan on your web site instead of using two references (one being the GCC, who have a reproduction of a reprint from 2000, the other one being your comment page on it)? Also, is it necessary to have your web site in so many refs and as an "external link"? And as I've explained above, I don't agree inline links were convenient. (One point I forgot above: they royally screw up the text flow when printed because they show the full, expanded URL in the midst of the text. You don't have that problem with any of the footnote referencing schemes.) Lupo 10:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You can see in WMC's destruction of my detailed references (diff) that I had removed that 404 link because it is redundant for that section. WMC also restored many 404 links which pointed to his own old site.  If he had reformatted his site when moving it, his preferred minimal URL-only sourcing would have completely lost the supporting material.  If you think this article has problems, try to find the errors in Kyoto Protocol.  (SEWilco 14:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC))

Well its nice to see SEW demonstrating to outsiders how hard he is to work with :-). Lupo: there are, likely, areas where the page can use cleanup. But I argue this is rather separate from the reference format. As to newsweek, there are two links, because they illustrate 2 ways of viewing the same thing. As to my site, the reason its an ext ref as well as multiple links is because the multiple links are to sub pages to support specific quotes. If the originals were online those wouldn't be needed. The ext ref is for the main page, which contains other stuff not even mentioned in this article. I've tried altering the NAS and WCC links to be names. As for the pringing problem... I didn't know that. I rather suspect that if I were printing it out I'd want the links inline still. It should be easy to make that software configurable. William M. Connolley 16:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC).


 * I don't see it that way. I don't like the link to your discussion page of the Newsweek article because I fail to see how your personal comments about Rush Limbaugh's reproduction (and the link you give there is a 404, too!) are relevant for this article. (Furthermore, did it ever occur to you that they may just have copied the text as published in the Financial Post as stated on the GCC web site? If so, they still didn't do their homework properly, but their subtle misquote is not very relevant to the article anyway...) Linking to the bare facts, in this case the PDF of the Newsweek article is far better: the info is there, people can verify the veracity of our article's claims themselves and directly, and your comments don't get in the way. Note that if a Wikipedian includes links to his own website as references in Wikipedia articles, he or she should be extra careful. Posting opinionated statements on one's own webpage is fine. Using them then as a Wikipedia reference is a slippery slope and could easily lead to it be seen as a circumvention of our no-bias policy.
 * As to the reference format: don't wait for software improvements. You might have to wait for a long time. Try out other ways that are available now and look how they work. Footnote-like referencing produces nice in-text refs (numbers or symbolic), and still gives the full URL in the footnote pointed to. In fact, it looks rather professional, like "normal" print publications.  and  is one possibility;  and  (or  ) is another. Lupo 09:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * On conflict resolution: I don't care who's hard to work with. We all are, at times. A useful de-escalation strategy might be to try to strictly stick to the editorial problem at hand. That seems to be the format of references. Here, we have a situation where some four or five editors argue against one over a matter of presentation, and the four or five open or co-sign an RFC against the lone one. In view of previous conflicts (which I just caught a glimpse of, and which I have no intention of analyzing to death), I cannot help but feel that this RFC opening contains a strong retaliatory component. Yes, edit warring is bad, but it takes two (at least). Instead of targetting the lone editor directly, why not try to find a wider consensus on the issue of reference formatting by opening a peer review on the article (or an article RFC)? Of course, if that was done, even the four (or five) editor majority here would need to be prepared to accept that maybe their view didn't gain wide support amongst editors not so deeply involved in this particular article. In any case, that route would keep the article in the center of attention, instead on playing on a person. After all, we're here for writing articles, not convincing other people of our point of view. And neither of us owns an article or has the right to keep others out if they want to make sensible edits. Lupo 09:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * On consensus: I see that the majority here claims that there was a consensus for a non-footnoted reference format here. I beg to differ. Consensus &ne; majority! Especially for a group so small&mdash;there seem to be less than ten editors really involved in this issue&mdash;consensus means to hammer out a solution that all parties agree to. Yes, that means compromising, or trying to convince, and takes effort. And sometimes one or the other participant should just realize that the issue is not worth the investment and go improve some other article. It's not the end of the world if this article has footnote-styled references. It isn't the end of the world if it has plain inline URL references. Part of consensus forming in such small groups is that some involved parties may cease caring so deeply about the issue. Sometimes dissenting parties may realize that there are tons of other articles on Wikipedia that need improvement and just leave the issue and go off on another route. That may yield a consensus that no party disagrees to. It's unlikely that a consensus solution makes everyone really happy. (It still may happen, though.) That doesn't mean it's bad. Even if any one party may still think their particular version was better than the consensus version, that's just their point of view. Lupo 09:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * All of you: ask yourself "what's so important about a particular reference format"??
 * SEWilco, why is it so important that this article (or others where essentially the same group of editors is involved) gets a footnote-styled reference format? Why not improve the reference format in some completely different articles? (I'm not saying you had to leave. But obviously you're facing opposition, so you have to ask yourself whether consensus building (and not edit warring and constantly reverting to your preferred version) is worth the effort, and if so, what to do if you can't garner support for your preferred format.) Do not edit-war!
 * To the others: why is it so important that this article (or others where essentially the same group of editors is involved) keeps an inline-URL reference format? What's the big deal? Obviously, someone thinks the current reference style could be improved upon. Couldn't it be that he has a point? Why do you constantly revert his attempts to your preferred version? Do not edit-war!
 * Lupo 09:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Lupo: you seem to be missing rather a lot of points here. On conflict resolution: I don't care who's hard to work with is spiffy, if you're not the one having to work with a hard-to-work-with person like SEW. But the rest of us have to. Do not edit-war!: fine, but facile. There is a consensus here for in-line links; you may not like that, but thats how it is. The *problem* here is SEW pushing his format, against what people want and against policy. Your analysis of the RFC is incorrect: you appear to have missed the strong retalitory component in SEWs behaviour. You seem to be peace-making here, but (a) you're weeks too late and (b) you don't seem to have the full facts. Why not go and comment over at the RFC or RFA: since its escalated to that level, thats where you should probably be commenting. William M. Connolley 14:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC).


 * The "problem" here is indeed people acting against policy. Replacing more complete citations with URL-only links violates Wikipedia policy Verifiability. I applied Wikipedia's current best practices Footnotes and followed the article's style for numbered referencing.  (SEWilco 14:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC))


 * Apparently nobody ever pays attention. I was suggesting you all stop playing on the person, focus on the article and get wider input on how to improve the article. You both claim the others acted against policy, but that's not exactly a conflict resolution strategy. What do you guys want anyway? Resolve a conflict, such that one can keep improving the encyclopedia, including this article, or see the other party "punished"? BTW, William, I have seen that the problem has been "escalated", which is precisely why I mentioned "de-escalation strategy" above. Think about it. Lupo 15:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Errrrrrmmm... well I'm sure you're doing your best. But as you can see, we strongly disagree about what the reference format to be used should be, and... well, see the RFC/RFA. No point in repeating it all here. De-escalation sounds nice, but its not at all clear how. SEW did his best not to cooperate with the RFC, and is now doing the same with the RFA. As to improving the article: you're missing the point. There are incompatible ways of doing references. There is no way to reconcile them (is there? if there are, why are there two incompatible ways). I don't see any way to compromise between them. If you can think of a compromise, do let us know. William M. Connolley 16:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC).


 * A technical solution that would accommodate the best of both worlds? I have been thinking about cooking something up, but I don't know whether it'll work. I'll have to do some tests elsewhere. Next week I'll know more&mdash;no time right now. As to why are there several ways: well, all this stuff evolved. Different people tried out different things independently, and so we have several not entirely compatible ways of doing references, none of them perfect. Typical "design by anarchy", fitting a Wiki. Lupo 08:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I have been focusing on the article; see my comments here. I've been improving the encyclopedia, in this case by adding easy to use and maintain citations with more detail, and fixing many 404s which had not been noticed when the article had only URLs.  (SEWilco 20:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC))


 * Oh good grief, stop pretending that the 404s are any easier to find that way. Anyway, Lupo makes one excellent suggestion: there must be large numbers of other articles outside the climate realm that you could non-controversially convert to your pet format: why not do that, instead of seeking controversy here? Look at your edits : you've done nothing useful for days: all you do is try to rustle up support for you pet FN system! William M. Connolley 21:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC).


 * Well, nobody had found and fixed the many 404s. The additional detail in a full citation makes it easier for people to figure out where a document may be.  And I've been doing useful Wikipedia things which don't show up there.  (SEWilco 04:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC))


 * Hrmpf. There's been an edit war (seems to have stopped for the time being), and obviously some egos have been hurt. Now stop taking every disagreement so personal. Play out the personal vendetta stuff at the RFC (on which I will not comment), if you must. If you want to arrive at some solution, sulking and finger-pointing doesn't help, and repeatedly saying "my version is better" won't lead to any advances either. Try to show some respect for the other's position. They both have their merits. Let's see:
 * Inline URL refs have the advantage that the cited ref is just one click away: the link is right there with the text, a reader doesn't have to jump to the reference section below. However, the URL needs to be entered twice if a proper reference section with full citation info is also given, which may lead to inconsistencies, and if a reader wants the full citation, he has to scroll down and manually scan the list of refs to identify the one where he was. Additionally, text flow is broken when printing the article because of URL expansion.
 * Footnoted refs: the inline-ref links to the corresponding entry in the references section; thus finding the full citation information is easy, just one click away. They look well in print, too. Going back to where you were when reading also works, but only kind of: the backlink always takes one back to the first use of the reference in the article. And the actual source is one click further away. Also, numbered footnotes need to be constantly maintained to make sure the nth ref goes to the nth entry in the reference list. Better to use a symbolic style, like Harvard, which doesn't have that problem.
 * Is that summary correct so far? Seems to me the difference is minor: one click more or less, danger of inconsistencies in one version, both can be done either numbered or symbolic. Both have their pros and cons. Maybe it is possible to find a technical solution that combines the best of both; I'll try to figure it out&mdash;next week. Lupo 08:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That's not quite correct. WP:FN autonumbered links do not have to be renumbered, and the backlink goes back to a specific link and not only the first one.  Make a sandbox in your user space and try it, perhaps with a copy of the above-linked version of this article, or see Alchemy and Jew.  Also the reference name within WP:FN references allows fixing problems such as numbering errors, where if only the URL is used then edits such as URL changes can lose the relationship between text reference and source citation.  Read the Talk and archived Talk at WP:FN which covered many issues during creation of that solution. (SEWilco 16:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC))


 * See Wikipedia talk:Verifiability: Format of citations and WP:V examples, and WP:FN. (SEWilco 03:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC))