Talk:El Niño–Southern Oscillation

Options for the title of the merged article

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"Super Niño"?

lately many articles mentioning a super nino for 2026. What exactly would be the differences should be mentioned somewhere ~2026-24660-29 (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such, doesn't generally publish predictions. See WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. We will see how "super" this El Niño will be, after the fact, and edit accordingly. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I've started Draft:2026–2027 El Niño event, as whether super or not it does look like it will likely be declared an event soon. Started it in draft space to make sure others knew they were welcome to contribute! I'm not a weather or climate writer, just recently went down a rabbit hole with El Niño. Valereee (talk) 12:09, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

First graphic description mobile

The description of the first graphic on the page uses directional terms like left, right, and bottom. While these apply to the desktop site, they do not apply on mobile and are rather confusing. I'm more of a reader than editor, so I don't really have a proposal on how to fix it, but doing so would be a slight improvement to the clarity of the article. ~2026-29357-38 (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Fixed. The descriptions within the graphics themselves are clear. —RCraig09 (talk) 02:59, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey RCraig09, I think in your edit on the 5/16/26 you mistakenly deleted the viewbox around the graphic. I don't personally how to fix it so I thought I'd reply here. ~2026-30519-64 (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't see a difference between "before and after", as far as the graphic itself. While I was there, I did simplify the text caption further. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Archives appear to be quite broken

Noticing the sequence of manual archiving directed to 'Archive 1' by Valereee (talk · contribs), I had a look there - as it seemed these should have gone to 'Archive 2' instead - but none of the content ostensibly archived went to either of the two archives listed up top. I think this is a byproduct of the article having been renamed many years ago from 'El Niño' to its current name - but the old archives weren't moved, instead redirects were put in place from the current name to El Niño_Archive_1 and 2. I've no idea how to fix this properly. If you manually go to the redirect page for Archive 1, there you'll find the recently archived content. Pretty sure this will require the intervention of an editor with some 'mad skilz' in the move/rename/redirect department, of which classification I am not! cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:12, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@Anastrophe, hm. It looks like we need to revert one by one, or we can just move those to archive 2 and then fix the archiving setup? Valereee (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Until the matter of the redirects is fixed, it's probably best if its left alone, I think. I'm not sure if there's someplace to put in a call for an 'archive plumber' to assist...! cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:26, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that you broke anything here - its that the backend wasn't ever set up correctly in the first place. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:27, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

If you really want to revert - no need to go one by one - just copy your recent comments on the talk page in order to hold them, then roll back to the last revision before your archiving. that will restore all the content en masse - then you can re-add your comments regarding your draft article. if everything is back on the actual talk page, then what was archived to the orphaned redirect page is immaterial and can go away when that's all fixed.

Ideally - less labor intensive - when this is fully fixed, I'll just add auto-archiving by date. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:35, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

oh, actually that'll remove this thread - but no matter - it's restorable too. But again - i'd say hold off on everything until all sorted out. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:36, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

If you're okay with reverting to before this thread, it's fine with me, but like you'll I'll wait to see if anyone has a mad skilz fix. :D Valereee (talk) 19:30, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

i've posted over at the help desk. I'm certain this can be cleanly corrected; I think if I were to attempt it, there would be excessive use of 'white out' to cover up my inevitable gaffes....WP:Help_desk#Need_an_editor_with_'mad_skilz'_for_fixing_a_problem_with_article_rename_and_archive_issues cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:39, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Before pressing some buttons, I want to make sure I understand the situation, as it might be more tangled than even noted so far:

Page	Contents or origin	Desired outcome
El Niño	Redirect to El Niño–Southern Oscillation via long-ago page-move	El Niño is the correct location of the actual page
Talk:El Niño	Threads 2014–2024	Archive them chronologically in Talk:El Niño–Southern Oscillation/Archive N Set redirect to Talk:El Niño–Southern Oscillation
Talk:El Niño/Archive 1	Threads from 2009–2010	Move to Talk:El Niño–Southern Oscillation/Archive 1
Talk:El Niño/Archive 2	Threads from 2010–2016	Move to Talk:El Niño–Southern Oscillation/Archive 2
Talk:El Niño–Southern Oscillation	Current talkpage (2024–2026)	In the future, continue archiving to Talk:El Niño–Southern Oscillation/Archive N
Talk:El Niño–Southern Oscillation/Archive 1	Redirect to Talk:El Niño/Archive 1	Reverse redirect
	Archive of threads (2015–2024) from Talk:El Niño–Southern Oscillation	Retain chronologically in Talk:El Niño–Southern Oscillation/Archive N
Talk:El Niño–Southern Oscillation/Archive 2	Redirect to Talk:El Niño/Archive 2	Reverse redirect

Someone confirm? DMacks (talk) 09:39, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

@DMacks: ENSO to use its shortened version is the umberella term for both El Nino and La Nina, so if we move this article back to El Nino then we had have to seperate the content out which isnt a bad thing but if we want an article on the umberella term it might be worth just leaving it at ENSO and creating new pages on El Nino/La Nina. I think as I said on @Valereee:'s talk page we need to conduct a review on what content goes where. Jason Rees (talk) 12:38, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I'll try not to muddy the waters, though my understanding of these matters is limited. As Jason Rees points out, "El Niño–Southern Oscillation" is the umbrella term; La Niña is effectively the other 'half' of the oscillation. So all content should be under "El Niño–Southern Oscillation" - the article and all talk page archives since before the move, since they're all discussion of the same phenomenon.

So, all talk pages should be under "El Niño–Southern Oscillation/Archive {X}", ideally chronologically, albeit semi-chronologically will likely obtain just due to various old threads being 'woken up' by random comments a decade later, and the corruption of chronology from the 'split' archiving. While pure chronology is desireable, the archives have search functionality; talk page discussion from more than two decades ago is rarely going to be referenced, whether in chrono order or not.

For that matter it may make sense to merely consolidate all the archives into a single 'initial' El Niño–Southern Oscillation/Archive 1; thereafter, a reasonably constructed auto-archive schedule can begin with El Niño–Southern Oscillation/Archive 2.

Oh - and huge thanks to both DMacks (talk · contribs) and Jason Rees (talk · contribs) for jumping in here. It was feeling lonely over at the help desk. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:07, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome! The changes could be nearly impossible to unwind cleanly once done and someone has objected to the article name/content, so I'm going to hold off until it's clear the article siuation itself is stable before acting to get the talkpage situation in sync with that. In the mean time, I did turn off auto-archiving of Talk:El Niño and would encourage everyone to refrain from any further archiving actions ("don't make it more complicated than it already is"). DMacks (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh my - ha, I hadn't even looked at any of the archived content in the first place. This argument about naming goes back seemingly to at least 2006, twenty years ago, and hasn't ever been truly litigated to a formal consensus. My gut feeling is that the scientific literature pretty much has rested upon ENSO as the 'formal' designation, since that includes both El Niño and El Niña, and other details in the orbit of the southern oscillation.

My only argument for 'moving forward'(in a very limited and controlled fashion) would be to consolidate all of the existing archived content into a single roughly chronologically ordered archive, that we can link to directly from here - for now. That way a consensus discussion doesn't have to point hither and yon to find past discussion. The last discussion seemed to peter-out in 2024, and has rested since then at the current title. Inertia can be a powerful thing, so at the moment - it all falls under "this title/talkpage/archives" until consensus is found (if ever).

I agree that it's definitely appropriate to prevent any autoarchiving at this time. And, since you're doing the heavy lifting here, I defer to whatever you feel is the most coherent path forward. There are adequate redirects for El Niño and El Niña pointing to this article, so for now, no general readers will have trouble reaching the public-facing encyclopedia article, which is our primary responsibility. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:50, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Complexity

As a lay user, this article is WAY too complicated. The intro alone is 5 paragraphs of language so technical that a layperson can't read it and know what El Niño is. I think significant revision is needed. ~2026-34520-39 (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2026 (UTC)