This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Forestry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the profession and science of forestry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ForestryWikipedia:WikiProject ForestryTemplate:WikiProject ForestryForestry articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments3 people in discussion
As previously noted, the article is way too long - it's currently at 98kb, which is around about where WP:SIZERULE says the article should absolutely be divided. Currently, it seems like the article contains two separate topic - REDD+ and UN-REDD Programme. In fact, the article itself recongises that these are two distinct programs. Both of them are notable, but in the interests of being concise/not confusing the two, it seems logical to split up the article into two separate (and shorter!) ones. OliverEastwoodtalk10:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Good to know - I saw the merger notice literally the minute after I posted this so feel pretty dumb for not checking beforehand! I do regret not being around for the merger discussion, as I do think UN-REDD and REDD+ should be separate. It seems in the discussion like there was some confusion around the 3 and how they are distinct from each other, so while I do agree with the comments that REDD and REDD+ should be in the same article (as was correctly mentioned, one superceded the other), I feel that as UN-REDD is a completely separate mechanism it merits its own article (albeit with some rewrites to make the distinction clearer).
However, that's just my feeling on it, and if a consensus has already been reached then I'll stick with that. I can crack on with rewriting as I'm very much in the REDD+ space right now (literally just finished a uni course on it!) - will update in a separate section here. OliverEastwoodtalk21:10, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hiya, unfortunately I haven't had any time to work on this and I'd welcome contributions from @OliverEastwood (thank you!) After looking at the article(s) I wouldn't be opposed to a REDD+ (incl redirect from REDD and Reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries) and a UN-REDD Programme article as long as the distinctions between the two are apparent from the first few sentences of the lead - I'd strongly advocate for one of those italicised sentences "This article is about... for ... see [wikilink]" at the top of the page (forgive me, not sure if it has an official name).
A lot of the confusion I was hearing from users around REDD vs UN-REDD I think results from the articles not doing a great job of explaining the concepts they are about from the outset. It's likely most people would be more reading REDD+ over UN-REDD Programme, but with all these confusing acronyms they might land up on UN-REDD Programme by accident. @OliverEastwood I don't suppose there is something one resonably could add to the title of "UN-REDD Programme" to further differentate it from REDD+? Like "(governance)" or something?
@OliverEastwood happy to hear you have time for rewriting! Much of the exisitng content on REDD/+ focuses on dense technical descriptions of the conventions and policies behind REDD/+, so not much use to a lay person who is just trying to wrap their head around what REDD+ even is in the first place. TatjanaClimate (talk) 10:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Heya @TatjanaClimate, thanks so much for all these thoughts, and apologies for being away from the thread/article for a while - just amidst a ridiculously busy week at work! However, next week I should be able to make a start on this. A REDD+ and UN-REDD split would be great as a starting point, but as you say both need a bunch of work to ensure they can be understood as distinct from each other.
As I say, I'll make a start next week and can maybe give you a ping through on the next pages to get some thoughts, hopefully by next Friday. OliverEastwoodtalk13:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hi, really sorry but work got incredibly busy so I don't think I'll be able to put work into this for a wee while. Earliest I can do anything is September unfortunately. Should have said something but I am so caught up in other things that it slipped my mind! Apologies again. OliverEastwoodtalk07:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hi, no worries! I just wanted to check if you had anything planned before I do any editing. I'll see if I can put some time into this article in the meantime, but welcome your insights when you have time. TatjanaClimate (talk) 12:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply