Talk:Younger Dryas

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spaghetti code source[edit]

I appreciate that an article needs references, and they should be there. But when I tried to edit this article, I found the source very difficult to read because of the massive inline reference tags making it hard to find the actual article text. I started converting this article's reference tags to an indented format for improved source legibility, but there's been a revert dispute. Why must an editor strain their eyes combing wiki source for bits of article text between bloated reference tags? I've spent decades editing without a visual editor, and I'm not going to start using it now just to avoid spaghetti markup and write-only markup. - Gilgamesh (talk) 23:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having a separate line for each field of a reference was common fifteen years ago, but it is very rarely used now, as most of editors find it easier to have the ref as continuous text. You are trying to impose a format which you prefer against the preference and convenience of the great majority. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's a problem, but your formatting arguably does not make it more easy to edit.
The solution is having a reference section at the bottom, and making use of shortened footnote templates {Template:Sfn}, so that there are no lengthy in-line references. Hypnôs (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, then let's do that. - Gilgamesh (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I made a start for the first three references. Hypnôs (talk) 23:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hypnôs I understand this method may be useful to some editor's using only source editing. However, as shown here and in the YDIH article it has the following issues:
  • The References section becomes a list of names that point to a footnote for the reference - a reader has to click twice to do this.
  • Ordering of references to a first citation must be done manually.
  • An editor must remember the snf name to use this, whereas in visual editing the citation can be selected. Moving the first instance of a citation to its first usage may be required using source editing mode, which for someone familiar with source mode should not have an issue.
  • I also suggest that editors look at Wikipedia Manual of Style before implementing such a change.
Thank you. Dmcdysan (talk) 21:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmcdysan You are right, there are certainly drawbacks to this citation style, and I prefer the visual editor myself.
But an article being basically uneditable using the source editor is not the ideal solution either. How do you propose to solve or mitigate this problem? Hypnôs (talk) 00:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hypnôs, I suggest that you and/or @Gilgamesh state the problem and ask your question to Wikipedia:Teahouse who may be able to give pointers or know of specific Manual of Style guidlelines that may be applicable. IMHO, putting each parameter of the Cite template on a line by itself helps readability.
Wikipedia:Templates appears to be applicable "Because templates can be contentious, editors should not add citation templates, or change an article with a consistent citation format to another, without gaining consensus;" so changing this article (or YDIH) to this method is discouraged. You might consider editing a shorter article with few citations (or even more) as an example of what you have done and the problems to be solved.
Another issue I thought of may be whether a citation cleanup bot works with this style.
Modification of an existing template and/or creation of a new template may be required based upon requirements articulated by editors preferring source editing. I too primarily use the visual editor and this is not an issue for me. Dmcdysan (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmcdysan Changing citation styles is not discouraged, it merely requires consensus, which was reached in November without any disagreement. Consensus is not a barrier to discourage improvement.
There are plenty of lengthy articles that exclusively use shortened footnote templates. This is not a novel issue that needs experimentation.
The avoid clutter section explicitly recommends using short citations in cases where inline citation bloat and clutter the text.
Can you point me to the section of the Manual of Style that recommends what you suggested, putting each parameter of an inline citation on a separate line? Hypnôs (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hypnôs, I was remarking that putting each parameter on a separate line is what is done in this article, and that I am fine (OK) with that. I inserted and then deleted a test of multiple instances and the ordering appears automatic, so ignore that comment - I thought this was the case in YDIH. This makes the article longer by having two lists but may be the best compromise for source editors as described in Help:Shortened footnotes. It is almost the style used by many articles of [authorname YYYYa]. I believe I understand this style and can use it. Thinking about it a little more a citation bot should find the citations. I like that all of the citations are grouped together at the end and that only the sfn template need be entered in the designated spot. I think the Re-Use for citation in visual mode won't work and an editor would need to locate, copy and paste the sfn. I'll have to look more at what you did with this method on YDIH, for example including a specific quotation for a reference. So, go ahead with this article. You may want to wait to do this on YDIH since some references may be going away. Dmcdysan (talk) 01:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hypnôs, Looking through the above, I see that @Dudley Miles did not agree with the reversion by @Gilgamesh~enwiki and because that editor did not respond in November 2023 is that considered consensus. I looked through the one archive for this article and could not find where consensus was reached. Can you please identify where this occurred. I know that I am coming in late to the discussion, but having worked through the examples in Help:Shortened footnotes, this would require much more work compared with an editor using the visual editing mode. I think that making this change is a bad idea for this article until further discussion occurs. The edits that Gilgamesh has made to split the citations entered by the "Cite" button in the visual editor may be sufficient. I would support development of a bot to do this across all articles so that it does not have to be done manually. Dmcdysan (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the triggers of YD[edit]

@Volcano345 The section on causes, as well as in the short description, presents the consensual hypothesis of meltwater flux as apparently a dismissed theory, then proceeds to elevate volcanism to the position of the main cause. This is inaccurate. If the editor is willing to look hard enough, one can always find articles that reject the mainstream theory. If no one objects, I hereby propose to rewrite the section to reflect the mainstream theory, namely the freshwater flux hypothesis. However, I will still retain paragraphs on volcanism for the possible role it played in triggering the Younger Dryas (YD). The mainstream theory on the cause of YD is fairly consensual:

IPCC report (2007) on Palaeoclimate [1]: Freshwater influx is the likely cause for the cold events at the end of the last ice age, i.e. the Younger Dryas (p. 456)

Encyclopedia of Quaternary Science (2013) on Palaeoclimate [2]: The northward retreat of the southern margin of the Laurentide Ice Sheet from the Great Lakes caused a routing of freshwater from the western Canadian Plains from the Mississippi River to the St. Lawrence River, with the increased freshwater discharge to the North Atlantic slowing ocean circulation and ultimately causing the Younger Dryas (abstract)

NOAA on the cause of YD [3]: just prior to the Younger Dryas, meltwater fluxes were rerouted from the Mississippi River to the St. Lawrence River (p. 2)

Annual Review of Marine Science (2017) on AMOC [4]: most of the evidence is consistent with the long-standing hypothesis that the Younger Dryas cold event was caused by the routing of glacial meltwater into the North Atlantic (p. 98) Aleral Wei (talk) 07:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The lead currently cites an article attributing the YD to the moderate Laacher See eruption 200 years earlier. This should not be in the lead. I am not clear about the status of the meltwater theory as it has recently been attacked. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the case for meltwater is even stronger now than it was 20 years ago ([5], [6], [7], [8]), though so is volcanism. Some people mistakenly interpret Wallace Broecker's statement as an invalidation of the meltwater theory when, in reality, he disagreed with the specific hypothesis that the meltwater came from a catastrophic flood through the eastern outlet of Lake Agassiz. Overall, he still believed that pulses of meltwater resulting from deglaciation were the ultimate trigger for the weakening of the AMOC ([9]). Aleral Wei (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are familiar with the current state of the debate then I suggest that you take on the revision. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YDIH article contradicts YD article statement of Mainstream Cause[edit]

A significant issue exists between the Younger Dryas Impact hypothesis article and that of this article regarding the mainstream explanation for the onset of the Younger Dryas as detailed below. This post ends with a proposed set of actions to resolve this issue, and proposes making this article the source of the (current) mainstream explanation(s) and that discussions occur on this talk page.

The first sentence of the second paragraph of the Summary of the YDIH article

"It is an alternative to the long-standing and widely accepted explanation that it was caused by a significant reduction in, or shutdown of the North Atlantic Conveyor due to a sudden influx of freshwater from Lake Agassiz and deglaciation in North America.[1][2][3][4]"

contradicts the first paragraph of the Younger Dryas Cause section

"The Younger Dryas has historically been thought to have been caused by significant reduction or shutdown of the North Atlantic "Conveyor" – which circulates warm tropical waters northward – as the consequence of deglaciation in North America and a sudden influx of fresh water from Lake Agassiz. ... The lack of geological evidence for such an event[2] stimulated further exploration, but no consensus exists on the precise source of the freshwater, and in fact the freshwater pulse hypothesis has recently been called into question. ... The lack of consensus regarding the origin of the freshwater, combined with the lack of evidence for sea level rise during the Younger Dryas,[5] are problematic for any hypothesis where the Younger Dryas was triggered by floodwater."

(See the Younger Dryas Cause section for the citations and the text indicated by "..." above.)

The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis Other explanations section, has several issues as well.

  • It is duplicative of the Younger Dryas Cause section such that the two articles are inconsistent and may diverge if the topic of YD causes continues to be covered in more than one article.

The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis Mainstream explanation section also contradicts the first paragraph of the Younger Dryas Cause section .

The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis Other alternatives section has the following issues:

  • The jet stream explanation is not mentioned in the Younger Dryas Cause section .
  • The second paragraph that begins: "Another proposed cause has been volcanic activity. However, this has been challenged recently due to improved dating of the most likely suspect, the Laacher See volcano. ...."

contradicts the last two paragraphs of Younger Dryas Cause section that contain the following text:

"An increasingly well-supported alternative to the meltwater trigger is that the Younger Dryas was triggered by volcanism. Numerous papers now confidently link volcanism to a variety of cold events across the last two millennia and the Holocene, and in particular several note the ability of volcanic eruptions to trigger climate change lasting for centuries to millennia. .... Regardless of the ambiguity surrounding the date for the Laacher See eruption, it almost certainly caused substantial cooling either immediately before the Younger Dryas event or as one of the several eruptions which clustered in the ~100 years preceding the event."

"A volcanic trigger for the Younger Dryas event also explains why there was little sea level change at the beginning of the event. ... No consensus exists that a meltwater pulse happened, or that a bolide impact occurred prior to the Younger Dryas, whereas the evidence of anomalously strong volcanism prior to the Younger Dryas event is now very strong. ..."

(See the Younger Dryas Cause section for the citations and the text indicated by "..."

In order to resolve the above issues, I propose the following:

  • Revise the summary sentence in this article to align with the Younger Dryas Cause section and use a working Wikilink to that specific section. The mainstream hypothesis for the Younger Dryas cause has changed significantly from the Broecker 2006 hypothesis stated in the YDIH article.
  • Delete the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis Other explanations section
  • Make this article the source of the (current) mainstream explanation(s) (could be more than one, e.g., meltwater and vulcanism) with discussions occurring on this talk page regarding reliable sources in support of (or against) specific explanation(s). (Note that the YDIH article states that YDIH IS NOT considered mainstream.)

Comments? Dmcdysan (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Dalton R (16 May 2007). "Blast in the past?". Nature. 447 (7142): 256–257. Bibcode:2007Natur.447..256D. doi:10.1038/447256a. PMID 17507957. S2CID 11927411.
  2. ^ a b Broecker WS (2006). "Was the Younger Dryas Triggered by a Flood?". Science. 312 (5777): 1146–1148. doi:10.1126/science.1123253. PMID 16728622. S2CID 39544213.
  3. ^ Sun et al. (2020), p. 1: "The prevailing hypothesis is that the cooling and stratification of the North Atlantic Ocean were a consequence of massive ice sheet discharge of meltwater and icebergs and resulted in reduction or cessation of the North Atlantic Conveyor."
  4. ^ Jones, N (2 September 2013). "Evidence found for planet-cooling asteroid". Nature. doi:10.1038/nature.2013.13661. S2CID 131715496.
  5. ^ Abdul, N. A.; Mortlock, R. A.; Wright, J. D.; Fairbanks, R. G. (February 2016). "Younger Dryas sea level and meltwater pulse 1B recorded in Barbados reef crest coral Acropora palmata". Paleoceanography. 31 (2): 330–344. Bibcode:2016PalOc..31..330A. doi:10.1002/2015PA002847. ISSN 0883-8305.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Younger_Dryas&oldid=1220257377"