Template talk:Environmental technology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Environment (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This environment-related template 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Template Purpose and Format[edit]

The initial purpose of this template is to bring together all of the subtopics of Environmental Technology.

The purpose of this template is to direct persons to subject matter which falls into the heading of Environmental Technology. This does not claim that the article Environmental Technology is the infallable source, as it may need work itself.

The format of the entries should be general topics within Environmental Technology. However, should the subject matter become too long, appropriate tree links should be formed. If you do not know how to do this, then hands off. If you do, then please feel free to expand."

Creator of template. -- Hard Raspy Sci 20:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The current links in this template are there intentionally, as of this posting. Please, discuss before merely wiping links off the template. --Hard Raspy Sci 02:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
The template is "environmental technology" which is well needed. The links which have suddenly grown substantially includes references to "environmental science". The template is becoming unwieldy since the large expansion took place and needs reworking ans separating into the two above groups.--Alex 09:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I know, "environmental technology" needs to be a CORE subset of Environmental Science. But the reason, the links were there originally before the large expansion took place, see the following paragraph. Anyway, someone erased them, and the template got wildly off topic. Typically, what I see are people removing links that are not "their" environmental technology.
Environmental technology is the practice or application of environmental science, which includes the non-scientific/tech fields like Conservation ethic, Environmental law (which is erased!),...and others, as well as those scientific/tech topics like Conservation biology, Environmental preservation.
The unfortunate result of too many chefs, is that everyone has their own, narrow, view of what environmental technology is. If you need an example, talk to HazMat personnel, or OSHA. Hard Raspy Sci 00:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Archives[edit]

Template talk:Environmental technology/Archive01

Addition of Green computing[edit]

Hi all, I just added Green computing to the template, as this seems like a fairly obvious addition. However, looking through the revision history, past changes to this template have been rather contentious, so if you disagree, please raise your concerns here. — EagleOne\Talk 17:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Addition of Hybrid electric vehicle[edit]

Added hybrid electric vehicle to the template, because it is not the same thing as the already listed plug-in hybrid. Like EagleOne's addition above, if this is an issue please let me know here if you disagree with its inclusion. One alternative would be to strike the plug-in hybrid link and my newly added HEV one for the Hybrid vehicle article, which includes both but also is a much broader topic (including things like hybrid bicycles, etc.) Alternately, the Types of hybrid vehicle link might be preferred by someone. Up to ya'll. - Ageekgal (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Addition seems fine, but think that plug-in hybrid should be removed. Either one of Hybrid electric vehicle, or just Hybrid vehicle should cover it. I mildly favor Hybrid vehicle to replace both entries. Zodon (talk) 06:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and consolidated to Hybrid vehicle. Zodon (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Rework to match standard navbox style[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The following discussion has closed. The discussion was to replace with new style.

I'll like to replace the Environmental technology template with one that matches the standard navbox style, i.e. horizontal instead of vertical, collapsing and typically placed at the bottom of article pages. I've done a mock up of what this would look like at {{User:Jwanders/ET}}. Figured this was a big enough change that I should post here before going ahead with it. --jwandersTalk 21:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Replace with new style - it would fit in a lot better with article layout. -- Alan Liefting
  • Replace with new style - The current navbox is unsightly. the horizontal one works well. Sunray (talk) 22:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Replace with new style - I favor replacing the vertical template at the top of an article with a horizontal one at the bottom of an article. In fact, I favor this for all of the templates that clutter up the top or middle of any articles ... they should all be on the bottom. - mbeychok (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
That old template is a horrible invention, riddled with holes people keep trying to fix. It looks ugly anyway. Someone keeps putting it on articles that have nothing to do with environmental technologies.Supposed (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment - At the top (what you are calling the top or middle) works fine if the purpose is to get to the correct article, at the bottom works best if the purpose is to get to related articles. I often use the renewable energy template to get to one of the other renewables - it is easier to go to another renewable and then click on a link than it is to get there any other way. If the navblock is at the top you can click on it right away, if it is at the bottom you have to wait for the article to load and then scroll down through the whole article to get to it. 199.125.109.108 (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Replace with new style - That looks pretty good actually. There are a lot of right list boxes for these sort of articles, but in all the other subjects I watch frequently, those styles have been getting strongly phased out, for the more standard design you propose here. I support the change. -Theanphibian (talkcontribs) 23:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've closed this discussion, modified the template per consensus, and moved it to the bottom of all (60!) articles. Thanks for the input! --jwandersTalk 19:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Replace composting with more general environmental tech for food production[edit]

It seems strange to single out composting for inclusion on the template. A more general term that covers the whole area of food production and recycling of biological waste, like sustainable agriculture seems more appropriate. Zodon (talk) 06:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Added birth control[edit]

There should be some representation of the population component in the Impact (on the environment) = Population * Affluence (energy and things used by a person) * Technology (used in extraction) equation here Carrying capacity#humans. Birth control seemed the most obvious of the humane direct technology applications. Other possibilities that seemed reasonable included Family planning. As others have done, I offer this section for discussion. Zodon (talk) 08:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Genetic engineering[edit]

I removed recent addition of genetic engineering because neither the environmental technology nor the genetic engineering page make any mention of each-other. Not clear that genetic engineering is particularly related to environmental technology. Zodon (talk) 07:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Johnfos (talk) 08:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Template title colors[edit]

Hi Zodon. I am thinking that a single color title is much easier on the eye and still allows the main topic to be used as a hyperlink. No? Granitethighs (talk) 09:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)