Talk:Living Building Challenge

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I suggest creating a separate page for the International Living Future Institute and moving that section there. Kellyoyo (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed deletion notice as this Wiki page expands on the consultants performing the work.

Available Reference Material

I've noticed this page lacks references to external material, my research has proved the information within the article to be correct by cross referencing the following trustworthy sites. I would recommend they be used in the reflist at the bottom of the page if the content can be tagged accordingly. This will significantly increase the article's credibility.

1. http://living-future.org/ilfi 2. http://living-future.org/lbc 3. http://archinect.com/blog/article/23655771/beyond-leed-and-bream-the-living-building-challenge-part-1 4. http://annesleyb.wordpress.com/2011/11/30/the-living-building-challenge/ 5. http://www.bnim.com/work/montana-state-university-epicenter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.85.208 (talk) 09:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have ignored the initial references (primary sources affiliated with the article subject). Archinect ref added. Blog post ignored, and BNIM article doesn't mention LBC (also affiliated with subject matter). Paul W (talk) 09:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kern Center, Hampshire College

Hey, to anyone who tracks edits on this page: are y'all aware of the Kern Center at Hampshire College, in Amherst, Mass.? It was finished at the start of this school year and afaik meets the Living Building Challenge requirements. Is there a reason it isn't on the table? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Txwatson (talk • contribs) 19:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Living Building Challenge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of page content (11/14/2024)

@Drmies

Hello Drmies,

I am writing to address the recent changes for the Living Building Challenge page. I have been tasked to edit this page for a homework assignment in my graduate studies. I acknowledge that I am new to Wikipedia edits, but I am also very excited to learn the skills to be a reputable editor like yourself. I would like to know why my edits and the rest of the content on this page were deleted, so I can ensure that I can continue to edit this page and keep my edits to benefit it. Thank you for your time!

Angk24. Angk24 (talk) 04:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angk24, thanks for the note. The problem is that the article is just awful, and invites more awfulness. The material to which you added more material is not really of encyclopedic relevance; the terminology and processes and the petals breakdown, that's not material that is relevant to a larger audience and, of course, it doesn't have secondary sourcing. I have to be brief right now but the best way to write articles is to start with secondary sources and then add what they have, in summarized fashion. This article has been tagged as promotional for six years, and for good reason. There is, however, a really good and easy opportunity to improve the article, at least by our standards, and that is to look at those references in that historical table, and turn that table into decent, neutral, and readable prose--that's real improvement, and I will testify to that. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 13:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]