Talk:REDD and REDD+

International relations: United Nations Mid‑importance

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations.

Environment High‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Climate change High‑importance

	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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Forestry (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Forestry, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ForestryWikipedia:WikiProject ForestryTemplate:WikiProject ForestryForestry articles

Organizations Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[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. OliverEastwood talk 21:10, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[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. OliverEastwood talk 07:08, 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]