Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climate change/Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Climate at the National Academies Wikipedia Edit-a-thon

Low carbon economy

Low carbon economy is such an unfocused mess that I don't know if an expert can or should try to fix it. Even if the article was in better shape, NETs have very little to do with economic transformation - they're about what to spend money on, not how to make money. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Carbon capture and storage

Just in case not everyone is aware, carbon capture and storage is not a type of NET, although Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage is. Carbon capture and storage is relevant to the NASEM report only as one aspect of BECCS. I removed Carbon dioxide scrubber from the page because it's a small aspect of an aspect of an NET. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Update on possible mergers

I've done my analysis on what the main article for Negative emissions technologies is. It's complicated. There are at least four candidates:

• Carbon dioxide removal
• Greenhouse gas removal
• Carbon sink
• Carbon sequestration

As shown here, Carbon sequestration is the most popular, and IMHO is the most well-developed. EDIT: I have started or will be starting discussions on merging Carbon sink into Carbon sequestration and Greenhouse gas removal into Carbon dioxide removal. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:29, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Track usage of NASEM sources?

One of the useful metrics for this editathon, and for collaboration with NASEM in general, is the number of citations that reference NASEM publications. Is it possible to see how many times a particular source is used in Wikipedia? Would it help if we set up items for the NASEM sources in Wikidata? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @Ariel Cetrone (WMDC), Phoebe, and Sadads: - do you have any thoughts on this? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

We have two ways to estimate this: first we can search the DOIs used in mainspace which appears to be in the range of 651 article usages. We can also search the url which appears to be 907 urls to the press. There are probably some that are not easy to find there, and we have some other estimation strategies if we wanted to go after the dumps. Sadads (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

What happens to these numbers if an article has multiple references pointing to the same source? E.g. If an article has three different paragraphs that reference the same NASEM report, will it be counted as one usage of the NASEM report, or three usages? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Clayquot: It depends: so the Special:LinkSearch link is distinct urls, whereas the Special:Search pages are general usages. I found a better version of # of pages using the DOI search: here. Its a slightly different search than the previous, using only stuff that is in the footnotes of the articles. Sadads (talk) 03:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sadads:, Thanks. It looks as if all of those methods under-estimate the number of times a particular publication is used. For instance, in Alfred Starbird, a single National Academies Press publication is referenced five times within the article, but only counts as one hit in the search results. In the long term (totally fantasizing here), it would be nice to be able to report the number of times a publication is used to support a statement in Wikipedia. We can explain the current limitations for now. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

table template

Topic	Things to assess	Specific to-dos	sources / NAS report	scope	av pageviews / enwp / day	wikidata QID	who is working on it

Notifications

FYI, I've added notifications about this event at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climate change and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)