Jump to content

Talk:El Niño–Southern Oscillation

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kralph1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re-creation

[edit]

When the ENSO article was moved to El Niño, it reduced the scope of the article to the warm side of ENSO. That article is now representation of its title, after La Niña information (the cold side of the climate cycle) was moved to its main article. The problem is, this still left a hole regarding ENSO as a whole, which is the parent article to both. This article is being recreated from the leads of those two, and will discuss more information regarding ENSO as a whole, such as the history of its discovery. Thegreatdr (talk) 12:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. There is an incredible muddle in many climate articles, with information and explanations randomly split between them, and huge confusion over (partial) synonyms. I've edited some lead sections which neither summarized nor introduced their articles. The texts vary wildly, some being hopelessly mathematical without lead-in: they must be useless to nearly all readers. Navigation is also poor: both wikilinking and navboxes are needed. I expect there are many more to be done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Backtesting of Dake Chen 2003

[edit]

Add in the El Niño article? as commented at Thought experiment:

In 2003, Dake Chen and his colleagues “trained” a computer using the data of the surface temperature of the oceans from the last 20 years.[1] Then, using data that had been collected on the surface temperature of the oceans for the period 1857 to 2003, they went through a hindcasting exercise and discovered that their simulation not only accurately predicted every El Niño event for the last 148 years, it also identified the (up to 2 years) looming foreshadow of every single one of those El Niño events.[2]

  1. ^ Chen, D., Cane, M.A., Kaplan, A., Zebiak, S.E. & Huang, D., "Predictability of El Niño Over the Past 148 Years", Nature, Vol.428, No.6984, (15 April 2004), pp.733-736; Anderson, D., "Testing Time for El Niño", Nature, Vol.428, No.6984, (15 April 2004), pp.709, 711.
  2. ^ Not only did their hindcasting demonstrate that the computerized simulation models could predict the onset of El Niño climatic events from changes in the temperature of the ocean's surface temperature that occur up to two years earlier — meaning that there was now, potentially, at least 2 years' lead time — but the results also implied that El Niño events seemed to be the effects of some causal regularity; and, therefore, were not due to simple chance, or to some other “chaotic” event.

Changes

[edit]
Chiswick Chap, I changed the "The "Modoki" or Central-Pacific ENSO" section to "ENSO diversity" to mantain the same naming pattern like was done with El Niño and La Niña articles. And I also changed that reference's name from "CPC ENSO" to "LNM Indian" because the earlier was leading to another reference in the article and hiding the real reference. ABC paulista (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Local standards, eh? It did look a strange thing to do. I'll leave you to it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not standards, just padronization. Besides, WP:TITLE and WP:CONCISE. ABC paulista (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 January 2016

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

El Niño Southern Oscillation → El Niño–Southern Oscillation – El Niño/La Niña and Southern Oscillation are actually two linked phenomena: El Niño is the oceanic and the Southern Oscillation is atmospheric component of the cycle. The current title is confusing, as it suggests that it is actually a southern oscillation called El Niño, which is not the case. A number of sources, outlined below, correctly link the two using a hyphen or an "and". No such user (talk) 09:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Titles of first ten GBook hits clearly indicate that this is a compound name, by separating the terms with a dash/hyphen, an "and" or a slash:

  1. El Nino, La Nina, and the Southern Oscillation, S. George Philander - 1989 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions
  2. The El Niño-Southern Oscillation Phenomenon Edward S. Sarachik, ‎Mark A. Cane - 2010 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions
  3. An Introduction to the Dynamics of El Nino & the Southern Oscillation
  4. El Niño: Historical and Paleoclimatic Aspects of the Southern Oscillation: Henry F. Diaz, ‎Vera Markgraf - 1992 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions: This 1993 book enhances our understanding of the mechanisms involved in the low frequency behavior of the El Nino/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon.
  5. El Niño and the Southern Oscillation: Multiscale Variability and Global and Regional Impacts Henry F. Diaz, ‎Vera Markgraf - 2000 - ‎No preview - ‎More editions
  6. Global Ecological Consequences of the 1982-83 El Niño-Southern Oscillation P.W. Glynn - 1990 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions
  7. El Niño, southern oscillation, and climatic variability - Volume 1 Robert J. Allan, ‎Janette Lindesay, ‎David E. Parker - 1996 - ‎Snippet view - ‎More editions
  8. El Nino and the Southern Oscillation: A Scientific Plan 1983 - ‎Full view
  9. seasonal streamflow forecasting and the El Niño-Southern Oscillation Thomas Christopher Piechota - 1997 - ‎Snippet view
  10. A GCM Study of El Nino-Southern Oscillation and Its Relation with the Seasonal Cycle 2008 - ‎Preview

A number of other sources use hyphenated name. Even a few which, strictly, don't, acknowledge that the two phenomena are linked but separate, e.g. British MetOffice in page titled El Niño, La Niña and the Southern Oscillation says 'ENSO' stands for 'El Niño Southern Oscillation', where 'Southern Oscillation' is the term for atmospheric pressure changes between the east and west tropical Pacific that accompany both El Niño and La Niña episodes in the ocean. No such user (talk) 09:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-controversial move,  Done ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

ENSO types image

[edit]

http://www.nippon.com/en/files/a03505en_fig02.jpg

http://i.stack.imgur.com/7IeD2.jpg

Could one of the images above be added here, or there is any copyright issues? ABC paulista (talk) 01:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I personally prefer the first but it is under copyright, however, you maybe able to claim it under fair use if you talk to the website owners and someone with a lot more knowledge about images then me.Jason Rees (talk) 10:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way you can claim it under fair use – WP:FREER basically requires that such images must be irreplaceable, and a Wikipedian can obviously draw similar ones for themselves. No such user (talk) 11:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jason Rees: and @No such user: I think I've found the original source of the second image, and it seems that it's from a Nature Journal Science. It also contains a image of "Normal conditions", that could be combined with the other image to emulate the Nippon image, but with better definition. That is, if conditions and copyright permit. ABC paulista (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Impact on coral bleaching

[edit]

I added information about the impact that ENSO has on coral bleaching, noting that coral bleaching results in response to warming ocean waters ~ Kralph1 (chat) 15:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the article: "There is no sign that there are actual changes in the ENSO physical phenomenon due to climate change".
This has got to be the dumbest sentence I have read in a long time. You can't have something both ways. A more scientific take would be:
'The main hypotheses of climate change are not obervationally supported by studies of ENSO variations.' 174.131.234.128 (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on El Niño–Southern Oscillation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

global disease patterns

[edit]

"Evidence for an association between ENSO events and heightened levels of malaria transmission is particularly strong"... other diseases discussed as well... Brief discussion with table and chart pp. 398–400

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on El Niño–Southern Oscillation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on El Niño–Southern Oscillation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Worth adding "current status"?

[edit]

It would be beneficial to have a statement, maybe at the end of the intro, or even infobox, with a "current status" and a reference or two (e.g. one of the monthly NOAA ENSO update blogs: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso) . I suspect many visitors to this page will be looking to find out current, or at least recent conditions. Thoughts on this?

A side quick comment as well - it might be worth renaming the "Diversity" section to something clearer (e.g. CP El Niño vs. EP El Niño)

Cheers, Uninspired Username (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not uncommon for agencies to disagree with each other about the current ENSO phase, because each one has its own criteria to define its status, so it would hard for us to not fall into WP:POV or WP:WEIGHT. ABC paulista (talk) 21:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Could that be mitigated by being clear about who is making the statements?
For example:
"As of June 8th, 2023, the NOAA Climate Prediction Centre announced El Niño conditions are present. Similarly the Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology raised their alert system to "El Niño alert" level, indicating that they are more confident an El Nino will form in 2023."
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.shtml
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/index.shtml#tabs=Overview&overview-section=Summary
Uninspired Username (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What agencies would be taken account and/or noted on this section? And at the end of the section, there would be a stance taken on the matter or it would be left ambiguous? ABC paulista (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A number of agencies publish "combined" estimates where they average multiple indexes (e.g. the "Forecast" tab here shows the averaged July El Nino forecast from 7 agencies http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/index.shtml#tabs=Pacific-Ocean)
It appears wiki articles / sections will focus on specific dramatic El Nino / La Nina events or periods. But a dry statement describing the averaged prediction for a specific time period could be useful for the lay person given El Nino is in the news a lot these days. Just my 2 cents.
Uninspired Username (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea, try it and hammer out the details depending on what information is available.

Better image for the lead?

[edit]

Can someone find a better image for the lead? Or at least a clearer caption? We need something more "direct" for the lead, I think. The one at El Niño is also not great so I've asked the same question there.EMsmile (talk) 12:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of the images on https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/ninonina.html? It's NOAA, so I expect they're fine to use on Wikipedia. Shankar Sivarajan (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use generic headings more

[edit]

I propose that we use more generic main level headings to make it easier for readers to navigate the article (for example "Types", "Components", "Impacts" etc.). Below is the current table of content and I've commented on each one in brackets:

  • Outline (OK although maybe "overview" is better?)
  • Walker circulation (should be moved into a generic section heading, maybe it can become part of "components"?) --> Update: now moved to be below "outline". EMsmile (talk) 09:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sea surface temperature oscillation (same as for Walker circulation)
  • Southern Oscillation (same as for Walker circulation)
  • Madden–Julian oscillation (same as for Walker circulation) --> Update: now moved to a sectin called "Related patterns" and replaced with excerpt. EMsmile (talk) 09:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interactions with global warming (OK, I think)
  • Impacts (Good)
  • Diversity (probably OK but not ideal as it's unclear for a lay person what is meant here with "diversity"; maybe better "variations"?) ---Update: now replaced with "Variations" EMsmile (talk) 09:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • History (Good) EMsmile (talk) 12:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that may be too few top-level headings, i think it's fine in certain contexts for certain top-level headings to be the same 'thing' if they're big, important concepts. It's like dogmatically stuffing different headings under a mammoth "History" heading in certain articles—it's not more correct or less confusing per se, and it does make navigating the article harder and removes a heading level that could be used.
I agree with your point in general though, I am not an oceanographer but maybe "fluctuations" or "evolution" for would be good instead of "diversity"?
I also think the history section belongs near the top, not at the very bottom, because it's very important context for the vast majority of readers to understand where the concept came from and why so much research has been directed the way it has, cf. Late Victorian Holocausts. Remsense留 12:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean with "I think that may be too few top-level headings"? My main problem is with the four section headings: Walker circulation, Sea surface temperature oscillation, Southern Oscillation, and Madden–Julian oscillation. As a layperson reader I have no idea if these are components of ENSO, different aspects of ENSO, part of the wider climate system or whatever. I think this needs to be clarified by using better sub-headings or a better structure. Compare with El Niño where the structure is clearer.
And I am against moving the history section to the top. I think history sections at the top might make sense for certain types of articles, like those about countries, cities, people, books. But for the more natural science type articles, I would argue that history is not what most readers want to read about first. They want to know what is it, and what does it mean for me today? In the case of ENSO, I think the interactions with climate change / global warming are far more important/relevant/interesting than the historical aspects. Compare also with many of the other science type articles as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Climate change, they usually have history towards the end. Same with the articles of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. EMsmile (talk) 15:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wholly disagree, honestly. Science happens in a historical context for human reasons, even if the concepts themselves may be relatively disconnected from time. All of the research into ENSO happened because of a series of traumatic climate crises in the 19th century, and a general audience would benefit a lot about understanding why the topic is important and what historical questions the model tries to answer—that is not mutually exclusive with the contemporaneous motivations, in fact, the latter flows directly out of the former. It doesn't have to be the topmost section, but how it presently is, I'm immediately struggling because these terms are divorced from both the figures they're named after and where they came from. Remsense留 15:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am a big fan of a "terminology" section right at the start of the article. This would meet a part of your concern (you said: "I'm immediately struggling because these terms are divorced from both the figures they're named after and where they came from"). As the terminology would apply equally to this article as to the El Niño article, I've used an excerpt here.
The current history section does not contain the information that you are after but only that long table. Again, the history is probably covered better in the El Niño article. We might be better off moving all the history content to just one article and then refer across from the other article, perhaps by using an excerpt.
Apart from that I think we are describing here a natural phenomenon, not the "discovery of ENSO / research of ENSO over time". If the latter was the case, we would have more content and publications about it, in which case a sub-article on history of ENSO science could be created (compare with history of climate change science). Personally, I don't think the history is as important as the description of the phenomenon, was it does and how it might change in future. But if someone wants to build up the history section, I would not be opposed to it. EMsmile (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly—I want to be clear that I feel uncomfortable pushing for a certain presentation—I've read just one book on the subject that's a bit of a split volume, with one half talking about the history of the natural/manmade disasters in the regions caused by ENSO, and the other half explaining the science to a reasonable degree and explaining how academics got there. I think the terminology section is a big help, but I figured I'd be bold and make a suggestion even though it's outside my wheelhouse. Cheers! Remsense留 16:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that explanation. It's also outside of my wheelhouse, so we are both stabbing in the dark, ha-ha. I got to this article as part of my work on climate change topics. ENSO is one of the internal climate variability phenomena. Perhaps your book can help to clarify the terminology aspect though: I really don't get the connection with Christmas here, or does "The Boy" then refer to Jesus? I mean this sentence in the terminology section: "Peruvian sailors named the warm south-flowing current "El Niño" because it was most noticeable around Christmas". EMsmile (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "The Boy" refers to the infant Jesus, which is the connection with Christmas. This would go in the history section, which I would put at the end of the body sections, with a short summary in the lead for context. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is basically a science article. We need to answer the questions: What is it, Why does it happen, Why does it matter? Preferably in that order, obviously with suitable section titles, and in as much detail and links to supporting articles as is necessary for the target audience to understand each answer. I suggest the target audience is reasonably intelligent, with at least a high school education and some background in the relevant science. History is secondary and should come after the primary information. If there is enough content it can be split out to an article on the history of observation and investigation of the phenomenon. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why the "multiple issues" tag?

[edit]

Hi User:Remsense, I see you have just added the "multiple issues" tag to the article: {{Multiple issues|{{Copy edit|date=December 2023}}{{Cleanup reorganize|date=December 2023}} {{Context|date=December 2023}}}}. I actually think the article is fairly good, at least a lot better than many. So I am curious why you think these tags are warranted and what exactly you'd like to see done to address these? EMsmile (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EMsmile, thanks for asking! I know a lot of people don't like "drive-bys" but I'm always willing to discuss my tags. Well, as somebody who has read at least a little bit about the subject, I still feel like the article is pretty inaccessible for a general audience. Like I said above, I feel like a huge amount would be accomplished by moving the History section up to the top of the article and rewriting it so it explains the historical context that led people to the research producing each discovery and ultimately the evolution of ENSO as an oceanographic model. The historical context as motivating the article alone would make it so much easier. Remsense留 15:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this terminology and history issue, I have responded to that above in the other section. I think it's important to ensure this article fits neatly with the El Niño and we don't repeat the same content in two articles (that one has a little bit more about history).
But if the history aspect is the main/only problem area then I don't think those three tags are really justified. Or do you have more examples of what kind of copy editing and reorganizing is needed?
I agree the article is quite hard to understand and read but not more so than other science type articles. However, if we could work on readability improvements, I am all for it. I also think the overall structure could be improved, see above in the other section. EMsmile (talk) 16:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the maintenance tag now. EMsmile (talk) 12:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maintenance tags are much better received when they are explained at the time of tagging, since they are not signed and it is a pain to have to look up who put them there several months down the line, when the article may be substantially different, and there is no clarity on what the actual problem was and if it still exists. Sometimes it is obvious, often it is not. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by reviewer (December 2023)

[edit]

I've asked Kevin E. Trenberth for his opinion about the quality of this article. Here are his quick off the cuff remarks: "Not liking this much. A bit of a jumble, uneven. This article mixes stuff up. The first is the actual changes in the ENSO physical phenomenon, and there is no clear sign of that. The models do not simulate ENSO well enough so that there is little confidence in their projections, and in any case the projections are off in the future. On the other hand, the consequences of ENSO in terms of the temperature anomalies and precipitation and extremes around the world are clearly increasing and associated with climate change. It then goes on to have a title "Impacts" "On precipitation" and is northern hemisphere oriented. Incredibly nothing on Australia, or NZ, nothing on the Asian monsoon."

Also: "Yes, I have done a LOT on ENSO. I attach 3 recent articles, one is topical on developments this year in The Conversation, one is a book chapter in the AGU ENSO volume, but my chapter covers most stuff. I also attach an update of the main ENSO index: will be featured in a new paper to come out in January on 2023 climate in the ocean."

It would be great if someone had the time and energy to tackle these required improvements to the article. EMsmile (talk) 10:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit of work trying to clear things up: how does CC affect ENSO, and how does ENSO affect the global climate. More work to be done. Expert input would be great. EMsmile (talk) 13:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merger completed

[edit]

I have now carried out the merger that we had discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:El_Ni%C3%B1o#Less_overlap_with_the_ENSO_article? EMsmile (talk) 12:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see it done! This article can certainly be made considerably better still, but it already looks a lot better than I feared it would. It's hard to tell that this content was ever separated across three articles. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 15:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Discussion of Current Lead Image and Alternatives

[edit]
Impacts of El Niño on climate.
Impacts of La Niña on climate.
Changes to winter (top) and summer (bottom) temperature and precipitation during El Niño (left) and La Niña (right).
Southern Oscillation Index timeseries from 1876 to 2023. The Southern Oscillation is the atmospheric component of El Niño. This component is an oscillation in surface air pressure between the tropical eastern and the western Pacific Ocean waters.

Can someone find a better image for the lead? I think the current one and its caption takes too long to read and digest. We need something more "direct" for the lead, I think. The one at El Niño–Southern Oscillation is also not better so I'll ask the same question there. EMsmile (talk) 12:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The images from https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/ninonina.html are pretty good. And by NOAA, so the licensing should be fine. Shankar Sivarajan (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at those images but none of them really grabbed me. I also hesitate to take one that is specifically North America focused (for the lead). EMsmile (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that lead image should be representative of the general topic, not of North America.· · · Peter Southwood (talk): 10:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found two images at Commons and combined them. I think it's been a substantial improvement. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely better.· · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, I don't like this image at all (see on the right, the top one). I had actually deleted it from previous versions. I find it very unclear. Nowhere does it explain what the blobs of colour are meant to show. Maybe if the caption could be made much clearer, it could work but I doubt it. The link that is given in the source in Wikipedia Commons also isn't helpful: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/images/warm.gif The image that was previously in the lead (to the right below) was no better. It didn't explain what's on the y-axis. I think we need to keep looking. EMsmile (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a vertical combination of the images currently in "Overview of three phases of sea surface temperature"? Also not the greatest, but maybe incrementally better, and it also shows the neutral state. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 18:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, that might be better although it would be very long in the vertical direction as the captions are so long. EMsmile (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found two NOAA graphs which basically show the same thing, but are clearer and better-labelled. Would this be sufficient? InformationToKnowledge (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current lead image doesn't match the current caption. Unless I'm missing something, it only shows La Niña, yet the caption appears to describe the image you're all discussing here. Anthony Citrano (talk) 21:11, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rewriting the lead?

[edit]

I think that right now, the lead includes far too much detail about what causes (or even may cause) the pattern, and very little about what it does, when the lead should really be the other way around. I propose limiting the mention of Walker Circulation to an absolute minimum, and instead devoting a whole paragraph to summarizing regional and economic impacts in more concrete terms. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lead should summarise the rest of the content in simpler and more accessible language, and in proportion to the importance of the content. I.e. Due weight. It should inform the reader of what they can expect to find in more detail in the body of the article.· · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, ITK. I've re-arranged the lead a bit. I've added hidden comments to explain my logic for the different paragraphs. The lead should also be longer (up to 500 words, I'd say). I took the lazy route for now and have copied sentences from the main text which I felt were suitable to the lead. More elegant would be new sentences / summary sentences of course. - More work is needed.
Also I moved the info about the Walker circulation from the lead to the main text. I am unsure how the connection with the Walker circulation should best be integrated, and to what level of detail. EMsmile (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of possible causes?

[edit]

Can we say something about possible causes of the oscillations? Is this Wikipedia article good and relevant for this question?: Recharge oscillator? (so far it's only mentioned under See also) EMsmile (talk) 11:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merging El Niño and La Niña with Overview

[edit]

I propose that the Overview, El Niño and La Niña sections should be merged into one, because they are redundant, and most fo the information contained in both Warm and Cold phases repeat each other, so the existance of both together warrants WP:REDUNDANTFORK, especially by being placed one just after the other. ABC paulista (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's good. (although I don't understand what you mean with WP:REDUNDANTFORK; we're talking about just one article here, not several? EMsmile (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:REDUNDANTFORK covers many levels of repetition, and we are talking about three sections that cover the same kind of topic: ENSO phases. There's litte-to-none differentiantion between them. ABC paulista (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might be better. Try a section merge mockup here or on a subpage and let us see how it turns out. Bear in mind that this article is the target of redirects to El Nino and La Nina, and it is preferable to have a section title somewhere that is an obvious 'redirect to section' target for each or both. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I've already done it, as you can see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=El_Ni%C3%B1o%E2%80%93Southern_Oscillation&diff=prev&oldid=1197779436 ABC paulista (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The section on "related patterns"?

[edit]

The (recently expanded) section on related patterns doesn't work for me. I have nothing against excerpts per se, to help us editors be efficient. But in this case, as a lay person reader, I am confronted with a wall of text and keep wondering "so what does have to do with ENSO?". I think what we would need is: either some broad explanatory sentences about what follows in the excerpts. And shorter and fewer excerpts (?). Or maybe move the content to the relevant sections above. E.g. would it fit above somewhere under effects of impacts? Or do we need another section called "Effects on other ocean currents / ocean temperature phenomena / or whatever it is"? EMsmile (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, the section all three oscillations establish some kind of connection with ENSO: MJO can indicate the current ENSO status and the near-future changes, even influencing them sometimes, PDO and ENSO can establish a teleconnection, feedbacking into each other, with arguably the latter influencing more the former than vice-versa, and PMM and SPMM has some influence on how the ENSO phase evolves, especially on its flavor (canonical or modoki).
Maybe they could be moved into the Effects of ENSO on weather patterns section, but I'm not sure how well that would work, because they seem to influence more ENSO than being influenced by it, especially MJO and (S)PMM, but they don't seem to be that crucial for ENSO. ABC paulista (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excerpts are seldom ideal as summary sections. It is usually, or at least often, better to copy and paste the text then adapt it to suit the context of the article. Then they can be trimmed, expanded, merged with other relevant content etc until they work for the article. Excerpts force editors to keep the content optimal for the source article, or they become sub-optimal for both.· · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Excerpts can work in some cases but the way it's done here with six excerpts in a row, without any unique text to introduce them or to pull them together, simply doesn't work. Kevin Trenberth wrote to me about this: "The "related patterns" is mis-named. The MJO is affected by ENSO and may play a role in triggering events. Decadal variability influences the fields as a whole. " EMsmile (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've continued to discuss this article with Kevin Trenberth by e-mail. Here is info from his latest e-mail, perhaps someone who is more knowledgeable on this topic than I am can utilise his suggestions?:
+++++++++

(Regarding the question on ENSO versus EN-SO): see the AGU monograph. No hyphen. It's a big book 506 pp and large size pages A4: El Niño Southern Oscillation in a changing climate. Trenberth, K. E. 2021: El Niño Southern Oscillation in a changing climate. Chapter 2: ENSO in the global climate system. AGU Monograph, El Niño Southern Oscillation in a changing climate. M. McPhaden, A. Santoso, W. Cai (Eds.), Wiley, pp21-37; ISBN: 978-1-119-54812-6. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119548164.ch2

The "related patterns" section includes stuff on MJO, whose fluctuations may help trigger events, and which cause short-term variations in the Indo-Pacific, the PDO, which is like a low frequency ENSO (decadal) and modulates ENSO, the Meridional Mode, which is really more a teleconnection pattern, linked to ENSO, and the South Pacific Meridional Mode.

In my book, neither of the last 2 are even mentioned. They would really belong more under teleconnections, and then way after all the major ones (see my book which has a full chapter on teleconnections separate from ENSO). Here's the table of contents part of my book C11: Teleconnections and Patterns of Variability 4540 words 10 Figs 15pp. The links between weather regimes and teleconnections affect how climate change is manifested. The main patterns of variability are described, along with the role of sea surface temperatures 11.1 Weather Regimes 

11.2     Teleconnections 
11.3     Annular Modes 
11.4     SAM
11.5     NAO
11.6     PNA
11.7     PDO and NPI
11.8     AMO
11.9     IOD

Sidebar 11.1: Indices of Natural Variability Patterns of the Climate.

C12: El Niño. 5246 words 10 Figs 15 pp The El Niño phenomenon causes the largest year-to-year perturbations and disruptions in weather and climate around the globe and especially throughout the tropics. It plays a major role in heat movements. 

12.1     ENSO and the Mean Pacific Climate 
12.2     The Southern Oscillation 
12.3     El Niño Events
12.4     ENSO and Hurricanes
12.5     Movement of Heat and Energy with ENSO
12.6     Impacts

The MJO and PDO are really different time-scales but affect the way ENSO has impacts. " The PDO/IPO pattern of SSTs is somewhat similar to that associated with ENSO, except that, by design, it is focused in the extratropics. They have been described as a long-lived El Niño-like pattern of Indo-Pacific climate variability or as a low-frequency residual of ENSO variability on multi-decadal time scales."

From chapter 8: "Another major organized complex is the 30- to 60-day MJO, which takes place primarily from the tropical Indian Ocean to the western tropical Pacific Ocean and is the dominant form of intra-seasonal variation in the tropics. The MJO is characterized by an eastward progression of large regions of both enhanced and suppressed tropical rainfall. The anomalous rainfall is usually first evident over the western Indian Ocean and continues as the MJO propagates over the warm ocean waters of the western and central tropical Pacific. This pattern of tropical rainfall generally weakens as it moves over the cooler ocean waters of the eastern Pacific."

MJO is not mentioned in my book wrt ENSO. 

++++++++++ EMsmile (talk) 10:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Italics?

[edit]

Wikipedia uses italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that do not yet have everyday use in non-specialized English.. The question is, do El Niño and La Niña have everyday use in non-specialized English? The presence of the diacritic is not decisive, as various loanwords have retained their diacritics. I think they do not, and should be italicised, but I am open to logical persuasion. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 18:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't use italics because as far as I can see, the literature on this topic doesn't use italics either. It's really a technical term not a "phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words". EMsmile (talk) 10:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Usage in most publications is with not italics. In any case, usage should be consistent across the whole article. The lead used italics, while the body didn't. So, I've harmonized the lead with the rest of the article. fgnievinski (talk) 02:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Section on Australia

[edit]

The excerpt is partly redundant to the other content, so I suggest that the relevant non-redundant content in the excerpt should be merged into the existing text. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what is best. The alternative would be to move the text from here to the Australia article, and then bring it back via the excerpt. I think an excerpt might be a good solution in this instance as the Australia article might get continually updated and therefore the same content would also be updated here. But I could also understand if you said "too many excerpts"!. EMsmile (talk) 10:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Size of article

[edit]

It is getting pretty big. See the section sizes table in the talk page header. This not taking into account excerpt bloat, which would push it up quite a bit more. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, there are larger articles - i.e. both Effects of climate change on agriculture and sea level rise are substantially larger. However, both of those have (mostly) been optimized to convey the most relevant information per paragraph, while this one clearly hasn't been. Looking through the article, I am guessing that every "bright red" section (>10k bytes) can be condensed by a third or even by half. That's before we start thinking about what to add or remove as it's updated with more recent material.
Since this is one of the most-viewed articles related to climate change (some days, it's only a little behind climate change itself and can easily surge ahead when the phenomenon intensifies), I'll have to devote time to reorganizing it ASAP. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 09:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just looking at the page size, not the content, it's pretty "normal" at 48 kB (7686 words) "readable prose size". But yes, if there is content that is redundant, repetitive or outdated I am all for removing that. Also probably too many excerpts now (I already "complained" about that above in the section on "related patterns").
@InformationToKnowledge great if you can give some tender, love and care to this article! Yes, it's got high pageviews (the original El Nino article (before the merge) had the highest). I've been in e-mail contact with Kevin Trenberth about this article. He is one of the main experts in this field. His e-mails are for my cryptic though as I am not into the topic. So I struggle to convert his comments into something that makes sense for laypersons (see above). If you want, I could also forward some e-mails to you (one of them is a marked up Word document). I think he'd be willing to collaborate further but I am not a good partner for him on this topic. EMsmile (talk) 10:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be honoured! You already know my contact email address, so please do! InformationToKnowledge (talk) 10:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible image to use

[edit]

I am just relaying here something that Kevin Trenberth suggested: "I include a figure there to show the 3 key fields together: sea level pressure (SO), temperature and rainfall. It is from IPCC and should be openly available: Figure 3.27 from the IPCC AR 4 report (here) Correlations with the SO index, based on normalized Tahiti minus Darwin sea level pressures, for annual (May to April) means for sea level pressure (top) and surface temperature (center) for 1958–2004, and GPCP precipitation for 1979–2003 (bottom). (from Trenberth et al., 2007)." Personally, I am not finding that figure overly clear. Also it's not compatibly licenced although perhaps we can find the same or a similar figure on the NOAA website where images are compatibly licenced? EMsmile (talk) 10:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No indication of current phase?

[edit]

I wanted to check what the current phase of ENSO is, but it is not easy to find, if it is even specified in the article. This is information that a reader may come to the article to find out, and we are either not providing it or the information is well hidden. If we don't want to provide it directly, we should link to websites which do provide it. This has been done for an Australian site. Are there others which should be listed too? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. But I don't think this kind of newsy/current content should be included (it would take a lot of effort to keep it updated). But adding suitable external links where people can find this kind of information would be good. What are suitable external links for this? EMsmile (talk) 10:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Counterpoint: if pages on military conflicts can update their infoboxes with the most minute changes on a daily basis, why would it be "a lot of effort" to update a very-high-view (more than climate change itself) article on an approximately annual basis? InformationToKnowledge (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, going by how long it is taking us to even improve the structure of the ENSO article, I have little hope that anyone has time to update it with the current phase info regularly... There are probably many more editors on Wikipedia who work on those military topics than on something like ENSO (?) Also, I would argue to keep in mind WP:NOTNEWS. People can find out the current phase for their country somewhere else, surely. (Stupid question: is the phase always the same everywhere in the world? Like Australia has an El Nino phase and it means the whole world is in an El Nino phase?) Anyhow, if you or anyone else does want to put the up to date info into the article (about the current phase), I wouldn't stop you. EMsmile (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Could an infobox work for this purpose for the ENSO article? EMsmile (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For me, the biggest obstacle on this is the fact that each agency has its own criteria when defining ENSO states, where some countries can state the onset of a ENSO state while others determine a different one, so a "Current phase" section could be cofusing for readers seeing distinct definitions being applied at the same time. And we can't choose to follow one specific agency, or some agencies, over the others due to WP:UNDUE issues. Unfortunalty, it's not like we have a global definition for this phenomena being applied everywhere. ABC paulista (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, if we are to extend the analogy with military conflict infoboxes, those do often have multiple contradictory claims listed at the same time, and it seems to work. As long as the infobox directs people to a section which explains why different agencies can differ in definitions, I don't see the problem. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 08:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you could give it a go, with such an infobox or a new section in the article if you think you can make it work. I'm curious. - (We do outline the different criteria here in this section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o%E2%80%93Southern_Oscillation#Monitoring_and_declaration_of_conditions) EMsmile (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the phenomeonon is scientifically dererminable, just connect a widget here with the latest past cycle and/or next cycle predictions posted on some some NSF-funded database server. People are going to ask: Why does your field need a whole journal? 174.131.234.128 (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Readability improvements for the lead

[edit]

I've just done some light copy editing to improve the reading ease score of the lead. Currently, only the first sentence and the last two sentences of the lead (IPCC quotes) still show up in red in the readability tool. I can't think of a better, easier first sentence, can you? It currently says: El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a climate phenomenon that displays irregular quasi-periodic variations in winds and sea surface temperatures over the tropical Pacific Ocean.

And the last two sentences are like this, should we try to paraphrase this into simpler language (I would be scared to touch this, for fear of changing the meaning through my ignorance): The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report summarized the scientific knowledge in 2021 for the future of ENSO as follows: "In the long term, it is very likely that the precipitation variance related to El Niño–Southern Oscillation will increase". The scientific consensus is also that "it is very likely that rainfall variability related to changes in the strength and spatial extent of ENSO teleconnections will lead to significant changes at regional scale". EMsmile (talk) 11:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've rephrased the lead sentence further: El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a global climate phenomenon that emerges from irregular quasi-periodic variations — variations are the cause (not the outcome), and their consequences are much broader than the Pacific — and ENSO is the name for the whole thing. We elaborate details of the phenomenon later in the lead. I have no opinion on the second sentence. No such user (talk) 12:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like your change (you've only changed the verb, right?) but as far as readability goes, the sentence still lights up in red with the readability tool. Any chance to replace any of the more difficult words with easier ones? I can't think of anything. But we don't want people to switch off already after the first sentence, hmmmmm.... EMsmile (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a big fan of "readability tools" but this time it does have a point. irregular quasi-periodic is a mouthful that even made me scratch my head on first reading, and I'd suggest replacing it with recurring or similar, and explain their periodicity later. No such user (talk) 11:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That readability tool that Wikipedia offers is actually very useful. Most of the time it is "right" when it points out the very difficult sentences in dark red... I often use it in conjunction with Chat-GPT. In this case, I asked Chat-GPT what irregular quasi-periodic means and it said this "refers to something that occurs in an irregular pattern but has some semblance of periodicity or repetition over time. It suggests that there is a certain unpredictability or variability in the occurrence, yet there are discernible patterns or cycles present." - does this help us? I think "recurring" is not much better.
I think we need several sentences. Perhaps like this (using several sentences instead of one): El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a climate phenomenon that emerges from certain variations in winds and sea surface temperatures over the tropical Pacific Ocean. Those variations have an irregular pattern but do have some semblance of periodicity or repetition over time. The scientific term for these variations is "quasi periodic". The occurrence of ENSO is not predictable but has certain patterns or cycles. Or too long? EMsmile (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From my understanding, quasi-periodic already entails irregularity, by definifition, so the statement irregular quasi-periodic seems redundant to me, thus IMO we could remove the irregular term from the phrase or remove the quasi- prefix from the periodic one, and the phrase wouldn't lose its meaning or nuance. Irregular recurrent also seems better to me than the current terminology. ABC paulista (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer if we could spell this content out more clearly, in a language that laypersons can understand, even if it requires a few more words or sentences. I think "irregular recurrent" is not very accessible language. I prefer my proposal above which is longer but clearer, I think. EMsmile (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMO either Irregular recurrent variations or Irregular periodic variations seem colloquial enough for a casual reader to understand the meaning of the phrase. The main issue is the quasi-periodic, which is almost never used so readers probably aren't familiar with. ABC paulista (talk) 21:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's good enough if we want to reach laypersons and not lose them after the first sentence already. What speaks against my proposal? I've shortened it a bit now: El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a climate phenomenon that emerges from certain variations in winds and sea surface temperatures over the tropical Pacific Ocean. Those variations have an irregular pattern but do have some semblance of periodicity or repetition over time. The occurrence of ENSO is not predictable but has certain patterns or cycles. EMsmile (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should not strive to say everything in the lead paragraph; there's the whole article below we could use to elaborate. Being "good enough to first approximation" is generally sufficient, so that we can keep the reader's attention. Just "recurrent" or "periodic" does the job just fine, and "certain" is just too vague when we have better alternatives. No such user (talk) 12:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I researched what "irregular quasi-periodic" really means (in plain language) was the first time I understood what was really meant here. Please keep in mind that the first paragraph of a Wikipedia article is often the only part that layperson readers read. I agree that my proposal is probably a bit too long, but just "recurrent" or "periodic" is too brief in my opinion. I called it "certain variations" in the first sentence to be able to connect it nicely with the second sentence that starts with "those variations". In order to not cram too much content in the first sentence. So it's not actually vague but gets explained in the sentence that follows.
Also, where in the main text do we really describe this? E.g. where do we explain clearly (explicitly) that it is not predictable? Let's find a space for it in the main text as well.
This article is highly scientific and very inaccessible for a layperson audience. I think it's important that we don't loose the readers after just the first few sentences... And that we keep coming back to language that people without a scientific education (and perhaps even non-native English speakers) can understand. EMsmile (talk) 14:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this could work (2 additional short sentences; i.e. the second and third one): El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a global climate phenomenon that emerges from variations in winds and sea surface temperatures over the tropical Pacific Ocean. Those variations have an irregular pattern but do have some semblance of cycles. The occurrence of ENSO is not predictable. It affects the climate of xxx EMsmile (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Housekeeping: just wanted to say that I implemented (a little while ago) the wording that I had proposed on 17 April for those sentence in the first para of the lead. EMsmile (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Options for the title of the merged article

[edit]
But how about my proposal for an article name change? Is there any support for that? My suggestion is El Niño Southern Oscillation (without a dash) or El Niño Southern Oscillation phenomenon EMsmile (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Small procedural question: is it better to merge ENSO into El Nino and then to rename El Nino to ENSO (Option 1)? Or better to merge El Nino into ENSO (Option 2)? I am asking because currently El Nino has more pageviews than ENSO (about 10 times more) and also (perhaps more importantly) about twice as many incoming Wikilinks (a whopping one thousand of them). EMsmile (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I greatly appreciate the emphasis on having our articles and article titles be easily understood and navigable by a wider audience. I think El Niño Southern Oscillation (with the ñ) is a sufficient title, as following the merger of articles it would describe the phenomenon in the broadest of terms (with El Niño and La Niña bolded in the lede as appropriate). I think ENSO is used widely enough in news media that describing the phenomenon as a whole in that manner satisfies WP:COMMONNAME. I've normally seen ENSO rendered with a dash or slash, though it does appear frequently without it (e.g. BBC, WHO) so if omitting the dash decreases confusion, that would work. Adding "phenomenon" to the title seems redundant as "Oscillation" already frames it as a process/occurrence (El Niño phenomenon would be fine, El Niño Southern Oscillation phenomenon is redundant) –TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 17:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, as a layperson and non-native English speaker I don't really know what "oscillation" is, so I don't think that oscillation = phenomenon. But perhaps El Niño Southern Oscillation phenomenon is too long. Hmmm, still not really sure.
For what it's worth, I've asked Chat-GPT about this, and it came back with this: "A simpler and more accessible title for the Wikipedia article could be "El Niño and La Niña Phenomenon." This title captures the essence of the topic by highlighting the two main phases of the El Niño–Southern Oscillation in a straightforward manner." (my prompt to Chat-GPT was "What would be a better, easier title for the Wikipedia article that is currently called "El Niño–Southern Oscillation"?") It also said "A simpler term for "oscillation" in the context of "El Niño–Southern Oscillation" could be "variation" or "fluctuation." " EMsmile (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From its own article, Oscillation is the repetitive or periodic variation, typically in time, of some measure about a central value (often a point of equilibrium) or between two or more different states, i.e. something that goes back and forth periodically, like a pendulum, so oscillations are pretty much a kind of phenomenon (which is any observable event). So, yeah, the redundancy argument seems valid.
About using "variation" or "fluctuation" instead of "Oscillation", I've never seen the Southern Oscillation being referred with any other nomenclature, so per WP:COMMOMNAME, such substitution wouldn't be recommended. ABC paulista (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, oscillation needs to remain in the title but we could use some of that proposed wording about "fluctuations" in the main text when we explain to people the terminology in plain(er) language... EMsmile (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please ensure that any title chosen is supported by reliable sources. It need not be the most frequently used, or the most recently used, but it must be used by a significant proportion of reliable sources to be acceptable. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any urgency to change from the current title. It is good enough, familiar, and commonly used in the relevant field of study. 'It ain't broke', and there is no obviously or clearly better proposal. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still think the long dash is confusing and ought to go. Perhaps it's a country thing: such a dash is perhaps more common in some countries than others? If it belongs with the English language then fine. But if we could do without it, I think it would be preferable. EMsmile (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you familiar with MOS:DASH? It may help you to understand the usage of m- and n-dashes in the English language and more specifically in Wikipedia and Wikipedia article titles. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I think to aid searching and linking, we'd be better off with the dash, unless we lose any information then? For inspiration, this is what I read from Chat-GPT which made sense to me: "The term "El Niño–Southern Oscillation" is often written with an en dash to connect the two components, indicating their close relationship. However, it's worth noting that different style guides and publications may have variations in their use of punctuation." and "Some publications may choose to use "El Niño Southern Oscillation" without the dash. While the en dash is commonly used to connect the terms and emphasize their relationship, variations exist in different writing styles and editorial guidelines. Some publications may adopt a more simplified form without the dash, and it's not uncommon to see both versions used in different contexts. Ultimately, the usage may depend on the specific style guide followed by the publication or the author's preference. In scientific literature and discussions related to climate science, you may encounter the term with or without the dash, but it's essential to be aware that both forms refer to the same climate phenomenon." EMsmile (talk) 11:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know your linguistical background, but on mine both the usage of dashes and the undestanding of the "Oscillation" concept are well established. I'm brazilian and we speak portuguese, and we are fairly familiar with dashes but on english they seem to be even more used than on my language. And Oscillation is a well-used word on popular and common brazilian dialect, and IMO english-speakers implement its usage in similar ways, so I really don't see any problem with the term "El Niño–Southern Oscillation". ABC paulista (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My linguistic background is German. We don't use that dash in that way for nouns or combination of nouns. But OK, looks like mine is a minority view so I guess the dash should stay then. EMsmile (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, here is an example of a publication that uses ENSO without a dash (book from 2020 "El Niño Southern Oscillation in a Changing Climate"): https://www.wiley.com/en-us/El+Ni%26ntilde%3Bo%26nbsp%3BSouthern+Oscillation+in+a+Changing+Climate-p-9781119548126 EMsmile (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The full term El Nino Southern Oscillation and abbreviation ENSO are the correct usage in English. Use of a hyphenated abbreviation EN-SO or term is not correct. An exception may only be made for the first word, which may be hyphenated.
Everywhere else in the grammar lexicon, the use of the dash between a primary and secondary descriptor like El Nino and Southern is jarringly incorrect. However, this becomes especially bad usage when the secondary modifier offers no distinctive. Native English speakers would never hyphen the second descriptor in such a case. In this example, as there is no Northern Oscillation under the category of El Nino, the only appropriate titles are El Nino Southern Oscillation and El Nino / Southern Oscillation. To use the title El Nino - Southern Oscillation implies that there also exists a Northern Oscillation under the category of the title ElNino.
This is all besides the point. The entire phenomenon should be named evidently. Call it the Southern Pacific Thermal Oscillation after its key indicator. 174.130.193.60 (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for picking this up again. I suggest we change the name to El Nino Southern Oscillation, without the long dash. EMsmile (talk) 08:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:El_Niño–Southern_Oscillation&oldid=1238133164"