Talk:Sustainability

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Sustainability has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
March 21, 2009 Peer review Reviewed
July 29, 2009 Peer review Reviewed
October 8, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Environment / Sustainability  (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Sustainability task force.
 
WikiProject Sociology (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Globalization (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Globalization, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Globalization 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Economics (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Sanitation (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sanitation, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sanitation 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Subpages[edit]

Engineering emerging technologies[edit]

There is a clear consensus, that the proposed sections are not appropriate for this article. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've removed a stub section on this subject. It was essentially a one-liner that said: "Engineering of emerging technologies such as carbon-neutral fuel, compressed air energy storage, and airborne wind turbines is crucial to sustainable development." That seems like a truism, but it doesn't tell the reader much. The citations given were not general reviews of the field and they were speculative and arguable. I'm not saying that a section couldn't be written on this, with better sources, but lets see it—not a one-liner. Sunray (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Not general reviews?
  1. Graves, Christopher; Ebbesen, Sune D.; Mogensen, Mogens; Lackner, Klaus S. (2011). "Sustainable hydrocarbon fuels by recycling CO2 and H2O with renewable or nuclear energy". Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15 (1): 1–23. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2010.07.014. Retrieved September 7, 2012.  (Review.)
  2. Pearson, R.J.; Eisaman, M.D. et al. (2012). "Energy Storage via Carbon-Neutral Fuels Made From CO2, Water, and Renewable Energy" (PDF). Proceedings of the IEEE 100 (2): 440–60. doi:10.1109/JPROC.2011.2168369. Retrieved September 7, 2012.  (Review.)
  3. Holte, Laura L.; Doty, Glenn N. ; McCree, David L. ; Doty, Judy M. ; Doty, F. David (2010). Sustainable Transportation Fuels From Off-peak Wind Energy, CO2 and Water (PDF). 4th International Conference on Energy Sustainability, May 17–22, 2010. Phoenix, Arizona: American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Retrieved September 7, 2012. 
1 and 2 are reviews, and they say "(Review.)" I am not opposed to expanding the text when I have free time as long as you are not opposed to leaving in the stub sections here and in Sustainable development. I am also happy to cite [1] and [2] if you are willing to allow a WP:WORKINPROGRESS section in both articles. Tim AFS (talk) 23:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Neither of the first two sources are about actual systems. They are theoretical. The third source is a by a manufacturer of a particular technology talking about a system they hope to develop. What we need are actual technologies proven and being installed. This is an overview article about sustainability. It doesn't seem to be the right place for information about potential engineering systems. Sunray (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
The Sabatier reaction is a century old, and the reviews describe its application in systems during World War II. I agree that it would be preferable to also include descriptions of the projects in Carbon-neutral fuel#Demonstration projects and commercial development and I hope you will please answer the question about whether you think these articles should have work in progress sections or not, and if not, the reasons why not? Tim AFS (talk) 05:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Tim, this article is a very general overview of the topic. It is a major difficulty finding overall balance within the article. For example - there are vast numbers of new technologies addressing sustainability but it is simply not possible to include them all, the article can do little more than indicate that such technologies exist. My suggestion would be to use your information in Wikipedia at a point where it is more 'directly' appropriate: say in an article on the 'Sabatier Reaction' or 'carbon-neutral fuels' - you would know where its focus lies: the article as it stands will expand uncontrollably unless kept very brief and above all 'general'.Granitethighs

I have requested wider breadth of opinion here. Tim AFS (talk) 23:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Granitethighs 06:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

RFC on engineering sustainable development[edit]

Is it appropriate to include short sections marked as incomplete with {{expand section}} templates describing, wikilinking to, and citing appropriate sources for carbon-neutral fuel, airborne wind power, and compressed air energy storage here in the Sustainability and in the Sustainable development articles? 03:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Yes as requester: These technologies are recognized as having the greatest potential impact on sustainability, and Wikipedia is a work in progress which should encourage readers to edit it with more advanced information. Tim AFS (talk) 03:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  • No This article is a very general overview of the topic Sustainabilty and it is a major difficulty finding overall balance within the article. For example - there are vast numbers of new technologies addressing sustainability in various ways- they cannot all be included: the article can do little more than indicate that such technologies exist. It is not appropriate to tag sections as incomplete - as, in this sense, the entire article and its sections is incomplete. The information desired can be inserted in Wikipedia at a point where it is more 'directly' appropriate. Granitethighs 06:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  • No - I have to agree with User:Granitethighs on this. Instead of "expand" tags, I would suggest using "Main|" and "See also|" tags under headings to point users toward more in-depth articles on specific topics where appropriate. See the article Globalization for examples how these tags can be used. Meclee (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  • No - I am a bit confused because I don't see such tags in the article and am not inclined to comb through the history. As far as I can tell from the article as it stands and the foregoing comments, no such tags are necessary or desirable. It is better to mention topics that are dealt with elsewhere in no more detail than necessary to establish context in this article, then to refer appropriately to the main article etc. Otherwise we just wind up with duplication and clashes that are hard to make sense of and unpractical to maintain. JonRichfield (talk) 09:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  • No - This article appears to be a high-level overview, so adding sections dedicated to specific technologies will start to knock it out of shape. Any significant technologies can be invoked by more proportionate means: a wikilinked term or a "see also" maybe. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  • No - Using wikilinks within the article when the topic is mentioned should be sufficient, or a "Main" tag if the topic warrants a short section within the article. But, for the most part, I think a wikilink is about all that's required from such a broad overview article as this one. And we should be wary of adding overly specific or speculative technologies in this article - there are better places that such should be included. Anaxial (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • No - This article is mature and rated "good article." As Granitethighs and several other editors have pointed out, this article is an overview. It doesn't need expansion; plenty big enough. Sunray (talk) 05:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • No - This article is already working, and if it works, don't fix it. --Sue Rangell 20:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • No - This article is well written. Fox1942 (talk) 03:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Weak versus strong sustainability[edit]

I just added the link to ==See also==. I find it shocking that such a big concept wasn't even a link here. Another shock was [3], where Weak sustainability redirected to a nonexistant section about on Ecological economics titled "Strong versus weak sustainability".

In Talk:Sustainability/Archive 3, ([4]) "I am aghast", the topic has been mentioned. Apparently there was even a section on the article. I just thought that I'd point out the discommunication between these articles, and probably others. I haven't gone through the whole archive, or archives of other articles.174.3.125.23 (talk) 08:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia can not be relied on as a suitable reference for our bookwork[edit]

I would just like to make a side note here, to all the Cert 3 Engineering students at RTTF, or more so, the tutors. Wikipedia can not be relied on as a suitable reference for our bookwork, particularly when the book was published 2 years ago, as anyone is able to edit articles on Wikipedia, at any time, as I am demonstrating now. To everyone else using this page, keep ya pants on, I haven't edited anything at all, just added this note to make my point. Cheers

Comment originally added to the top of the article by @NZVictorian:, moved to talk page. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)