This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan 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.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
Hi, all, I recently made a series of copyedits to this page [1], which have been reverted as "restoring sourced info". Now, they were copyedits for the most part, meaning that there's little sourced info to restore, because I barely removed any. The only thing I did remove was a comment from the former PEPA director about the efffects of global climate change; since the comment was directed at changes to the entire globe, it was out of scope for this article. Everything else was simply reworded, not removed. As such, absent any actual disagreement with the copyedits, and mindful of the rules about edit-warring, I'm going to restore my edits, since this looks more like an honest mistake than anything else. I'd welcome disagreement here. 73.133.12.111 (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anon twice deleted the background section with no rationale other than it has only 1 source. This was twice reverted by other users. If anon deletes this background section again I would consider it a violation of WP:3RR. Brian Everlasting (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*sigh* I didn't delete it, I renamed it to "Causes" and moved it lower in the article, since it's not really saying anything about background. I certainly never said anything about having only one source. Could you please remove the background section, since it's basically now a duplicate of the causes section? 73.133.12.111 (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, it would not be a 3RR violation; 3RR says *more than* three, not just three. I know that 3RR isn't an entitlement, but considering that I was reverting honest mistakes of people misreading the diff of my changes, as admitted by ScrapIron, I really don't think there's much of a case for edit-warring. Nevertheless, I'll hold off on reverting again for a while. 73.133.12.111 (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for not reverting to yourself again. I removed the causes section and renamed background to causes because I agree the section is more about causes than background. Brian Everlasting (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did reinstate my copyedits, though; we can't leave the section like it was. If nothing else, Shuja isn't the director general of the Pak-EPA anymore, and can't speak on its behalf, so we can't attribute the section to the Pak-EPA. 73.133.12.111 (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did, yeah; more out of a sense of scope creep than anything else. A lot of what he's quoted as saying is talking about climate change in general, rather than specifically about this heat wave, so it starts to fall out-of-scope of this very specific article. There is also that at some point we have to limit the space we're giving to what this one person's saying; if this were all an official publication of Pak-EPA or another organization, that'd be one thing, but... If you think that's an important point to make, it's probably best to work that into the sentence that talks about superhighways or something, rather than giving it the prominence of its own paragraph. 73.133.12.111 (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I further trimmed the section, and relabeled as "Contributory factors" since these items contributed to the number of casualties but didn't actually "cause" the heat wave. —Patrug (talk) 01:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that this is a current event, while the environment banner at the top may be okay, wouldn't this warrant a {{WikiProject Meteorology}} banner (even though most of the editors of this page aren't really weather editors) because it is within its scope? Dustin(talk)16:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, nevermind. The bottom banner is just part of WikiProject Meteorology. It's not a super-common banner so I didn't recognize it. Dustin(talk)16:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Am I missing something, or are these solar power plants in San Bernadino, California and Andalusia, Spain completely out of place? -Laikalynx (talk) 17:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would think as long as people have a water supply and they can splash that water on themselves and have it evaporate to cool them, that would prevent large numbers of deaths. So:
1) Do they not all have access to water ? Lack of electricity was listed as a problem, and in areas where electrical pumps are required to supply water, that could also mean a lack of water. (I suppose if they have to walk a mile in this heat to get water, that would qualify as not having water.)
2) Was the humidity too high to allow for evaporation ?
I assume 1 is more of an issue than 2, as dehydration was listed as a cause of death, but we really should add some info on this to the article. StuRat (talk) 17:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 3 external links on 2015 Pakistan heat wave. 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.
