Talk:REDD and REDD+

Split article into REDD+ and UN-REDD Programme

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. OliverEastwood talk 10:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

It was merged per Talk:United Nations REDD Programme#Merger Proposal and I feel it would be better rewritten to remove duplication and excess detail rather than split. However that would be a big job and as I am not going to do it I guess I should not vote on this split proposal unless someone else volunteers to do the work. Dunno if it would be beyond the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors but I could ask if no one steps forward. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

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while I do agree with the comments that REDD and REDD+ should be in the same article (as was correctly mentioned, one superceded the other), I feel that as UN-REDD is a completely separate mechanism it merits its own article (albeit with some rewrites to make the distinction clearer).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. OliverEastwood talk 21:10, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Great that you are rewriting. @TatjanaClimate and yourself no doubt know better than me whether this should be one article or two Chidgk1 (talk) 06:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

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. OliverEastwood talk 13:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @OliverEastwood are you still planning to work on this article? I've been holding off editing, but am keen for the article to improve. TatjanaClimate (talk) 10:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

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. OliverEastwood talk 07:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

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)