"59, 9 February 2010 (UTC) 

 ====Edit the edit==== 
 # Could you detail what information you'd like reincluded so we could improve the article?    
 # Briefly mentioning the main topics of the previous subheadings would be worthwhile, kept to two or three short sentences. . . ,   
 #: Totally on board. Go crazy.    
 #    
 # Assuming that we keep sub-article, I think that this section should be expanded a bit.  A good paragraph should be sufficient.     
 ::Why don't we simply copy and paste the summary for the sub article here? On a side note, I sometimes wonder why Wikipedia doesn't do this programmaticly.    
 :::I think there is some general consensus that the summary should be larger than it is presently, but smaller than CoM's reverted edit.  The main difference appears to be between those who want to work from smaller to bigger vs. those that wish to pare the larger one down.  Maybe, like AQFK suggested, we can get a sample to tinker with, perhaps at Climatic Research Unit hacking incident/sandbox or pasted in the discussion. I am still not convinced of the necessity of the sub-article, but if we must have it, then we do need to amplify that summary.   
 #Err, agree, as demonstrated by my edits to the article. The resulting version seems more or less okay to me for reasons stated in my edit summary. Any thoughts? I'm down to self-revert sections if faced with good reason.   

 == RfC on article name change == 

  
 Should this article be renamed?  If so, what should it be?     
 *Support name change and suggest Climatic Research Unit ""Climategate"" incident.  I believe that this list shows that ""Climategate"" is now the common name for this incident used in print and video media, by government figures, and by the general public, on both sides of the controversy.  The list of sources even shows a couple of major Spanish newspapers using the ""Climategate"" term.  I suggest adding ""Climatic Research Unit"" at the beginning to clarify the title, and putting ""Climategate"" in quotation marks (WP:AT does not appear to prohibit using quotation marks within the full title) and adding ""incident"" at the end to NPOV it.    
 :*As a second choice, I support any variation of Climatic Research Unit email controversy.    
 ::*Trade ""email"" for ""documents"" and I'm game. The controversy covers coding as well.   
 *Support change to Cla's version, or perhaps ""Climate Research Unit Email Controversy"" with Climategate mentioned as aka in the lede. Note that the use of the word ""hacking"" is similarly unconfirmed, so that shouldn't be there either. OTOH, it's clearly a ""controversy"" (both the ""hacking"" and the emails themselves, in fact) so calling it ""controversy"" should not be a problem.    
 *Oppose name change until investigation conclusions are known. Oppose anything using the non-neutral terminology ""Climategate"". Oppose proposal by Cla68 - WP:NPOV violation (not neutral), WP:WTA violation (uses ""-gate"" construct), WP:TITLE violation (uses ""quote-like characters""), unbelievably tendentious given recent discussion.     
 *Oppose renaming this article until investigation is complete. Further oppose non-neutral ""-gate"" terminology.    
 ::I'm puzzled by the drive to wait until the investigation is complete before changing the article title. The current article title make