Talk:Danish unofficial draft version of UNCCC treaty leaks, G77 reacts sharply

propose

• I had been working on COP15, "Danish text" divides climate summit, could these be merged.
• From what I have read, the document is not a "draft version of UNCCC treaty" but a alternative treaty outside of the Kyoto framework. I think the page title should be something like COP15, Unoffical "Danish text" leaks, G77 reacts sharply. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrchris (talk • contribs)

If you think you can pull off the merge, go for it! "Technically" you should merge to oldest, but that's sometimes just a micro-stub. It would be great to see an article a day on the conference, so if there's a few-sentence para needs cut, save a copy for later - just in case. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 15:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I accept the merging proposal and title change. Will try to realise in three hours. Gryllida (page, contributions, talk) 10:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

merged Gryllida (page, contributions, talk) 10:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

title not changed, as I think the current title is more informative, and the word "unofficial" is enough to emphasize the status of the document. Gryllida (page, contributions, talk) 11:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I still think that it is not a "draft version of UNCCC treaty" but a alternative treaty outside/instead of the Kyoto framework. here is how I think it should be described - The ‘Danish text’ calls for a new and alternate framework instead of the Kyoto Protocol. It has caused anger among developing countries who fear that could replace negotiations under Bali Road Map. - this is why - Brazil, South Africa, India and China, the BASIC bloc, have called for all climate change negotiations to be held under the UNFCCC framework. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrchris (talk • contribs) 16:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Review of revision 920909 [Passed]

Revision 920909 of this article has been reviewed by Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 14:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 920909 of this article has been reviewed by Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 14:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Edit

{{editprotected}} Please add links for Copenhagen, the EU, the US, and Denmark in the lead. And please add this to Category:Europe and transfer it out of Category:Climate (otherwise unused; I imagine it would in practice virtually duplicate the scope of Category:Weather, if not Category:Climate change, too) and into Category:Climate change, Category:Weather, and Category:Environment. Heavy Water (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Done @Heavy Water:, there was a lot in this request, please check if I did it adequately. --SVTCobra 23:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, actually you did miss the EU and US links and the Weather cat (but I'm second-guessing my suggestion of the Weather cat). Heavy Water (talk) 00:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)