Talk:Green building

message: I deleted a (second) entry for Australia that pointed to a promotional site not a rating framework.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.113.72 (talk) 09:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted inappropriate link 

message: I added a map that shows US states that are now requiring or encouraging green building certification.  Casey789 03:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added Map 

message: As much as I agree with the substance of the article, I fear that language like "clearly, our buildings, and how we use them, have a profound impact on the Earth's resources" borders on POV due to its tone but not its content...
    
--Spindustrious 09:23, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is clear when you recognize that 40% of energy use (in the US) goes to building construction, operation and maintenance. Buildings are also the most significant land use impact besides agriculture. These are simple neutral observations. --belg4mit 2007-2-08 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.212.241.202 (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: (Note: please do not use horizontal bars for new topics, use section titles.)
Statistics backing up evidence of building impact on natural resources are provided in the article, with a linked footnote for more information.  Suggestions for wording changes, however, are welcome.  
-- KS, 25 Apr 2005
Statistics are subject to interpretation. What is included or excluded from the calculations can have a profound impact on the results. You can get almost any result you want if you work the basis of the statistics around long enough. An extreme example of this type of manipulation is the following question that must be answered yes or no. "Have you stop beating your dog?" If you answer yes, you were beating your dog. If you answer no, you are still beating your dog. Either way the result is 100% of those who answer such a question yes or no have beat their dog and 0% have not beat their dog.
Words like "clearly" and "profound impact" are the problem here. They are subjective and not quantifiable by statistics. Make your point by simply identifying the source of the statistics and eliminating the subjective language.
-- HM, 12 May 2005
:I am not really sure what the arguement is here.  Areas like clear cut logging, strip mining, and the like tend, without the support of "statistics", to depict "clear" and "profound impacts", thus the need for documents like EIS to government agencies like EPA.  -- Hard Raspy Sci 21:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics 

message: I don't really understand the point of having a bunch of random interal links.  Can someone explain to me the purpose of this section?  Could someone (preferably the person who put all the links in) expand this into something more compelling?  Velvetsmog 21:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess there is some green building somewhere in LA see Playa Vista, Los Angeles, California, but perhaphs a joke - one of the least sustainable places about. It was added by 161.149.63.100 in January http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Green_building&diff=33741141&oldid=32956558, I'll remove the link. 
In any case I think sustainable town development should be in its own article rather than here. There is quite a difference in scope between the two. --Salix alba (talk) 09:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Well done. -- Solipsist 08:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe this is a valuable link to put back into the page.  Especially since, it is a moderated discussion with a lot of valuable information.  I personally had nothing to do with creating this discussion and am not a moderator.  I have just found this to be a valuable resource to ask questions to engineers and designers who frequent the board.
Ecgossett 13:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (I stripped the link because it is on the spam blacklist. --Jorunn 12:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links section? 

message: I pruned the External Links section
* Removed primarily commercial links: specific firms
* Removed non-notable links: sites of specific buildings, obscure research
* Retained more general informational links on green building
* Retained commercial sites which are umbrella groups for industry
* Categorized links mainly by geography
Prospect77 00:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done. -- Solipsist 08:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links Section

message: * s10.invisionfree.com/Alternative_Building Alternative Building Discussion Guide 
:I believe this is a valuable link to put back into the page.  Especially since, it is a moderated discussion with a lot of valuable information.  I personally had nothing to do with creating this discussion and am not a moderator.  I have just found this to be a valuable resource to ask questions to engineers and designers who frequent the board.
Ecgossett 13:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (I stripped the link because it is on the spam blacklist. --Jorunn 12:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding a link back in

message: I went through the article bringing it closer in line with our manual of style.  This was mainly removing non citation imbedded links.  Removing repeat internal links where I noticed them.  Removing sections that were promotional or were to do with something mentioned in the article rather than being directly about green building.  Some of the links I removed may provide a good springboard for further research.  you can check them out from the diff in the edit history.  
I believe the edits I made should satisfy the  concerns in the Canadian section.  If not, please put the tag back and let us know here what specific concerns remain.  I'm not sure about the same tag in the Australia section.  I wasn't sure how to address the concerns in the australia section without simply deleting it.  If someone know more about green building in Australia work on this section would be appreciated.
The external links section is horrendous.  We ought to have a manageable set (5, maybe 6) of links that a general reader would find really useful.  At the moment it's a messy portal, with most failing our external links guidelines, that someone who doesn't know the sector (and many who do) would have to trawl through to find anything interesting.  It could really use a severe pruning if anyone is up to looking through each one.-- Siobhan Hansa 16:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Remove at will. Sunray 22:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: Architecture is carried out by architects; green building may involve an architect at some point, or may not. So I guess if it's necessary to clarify definitions, that would make sustainable architecture a sub-set of green building. Gralo 23:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I'm confused. I thought that the discussion on the Sustainable architecture had pretty well concluded against merging these two articles. The tag suggests merging S.A. into Green building and I had understood you to be against this. As to merging the other way: Green building is an increasingly distinct field and certainly needs its own article, IMO. I really think it is time for the merge tag to come down. However, as I've said elsewhere, this article does need work (and the quality tag should stay). Sunray 07:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to be confused. I had originally approached this as above (with the proposal of reopening the merger), but have changed my thinking. I did not put the merge tag back up. That was Miscreant on 30 March 2007. I'm in favour of taking the merge tag back down and improving the articles as they stand.--Jrsnbarn 11:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merger with sustainable architecture

message: It seems to me that this section is far larger than is required in an article on Green building, and that the content might be more appropriate in the Rammed earth page. --Jrsnbarn 00:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rammed earth merger proposal 

message: We would like to get input on the inclusion of an external link in the article on Straw-bale construction. There is discussion and a poll here. Comments prior to August 3, 2007 would be appreciated. Thanks. Sunray 07:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll on inclusion of link

message: Would anyone object to my adding http://www.motherearthnews.com/Green-Homes.aspx to the external links section of this article? It seems relevant and objective.
Trexitor (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: The DMOZ search template, and by implication all DMOZ search links, is being considered for deletion because it violates WP:ELNO #9. Anyone interested in discussing the fate of Open Directory Project (DMOZ) search links is invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Dmoz2.  Qazin (talk) 05:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Open Directory Project Links

message: The article I've used as a reference quotes somebody saying "more than 85% of office buildings in Australia are at least 10 years old", and explains that by "retrofitting office stock" they hope to save emissions the "equivalent  of taking 6.4 million cars off the road". That would imply they are talking about doing all 85%, right? Bear in mind the total population is only 22 million people. Ottre 05:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  It doesn't imply that at all to me.You can't take a number for 'office buildings at least 10 years old', and then assume thats their exclusive target for 'retrofitting office stock'. You might retrofit newer buildings, and some older buildings might not need retrofitting. Aside from the fact that trying to substantially retrofit buildings is not something the government can do itself, and thus can not 'plan a number', but needs private companies to do (and pay for) of their own accord.... Miscreant (talk) 10:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dual-stage building improvements in Australia 

message: hospitals....???  Please add the info in the section of scope--58.38.46.64 (talk) 12:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is the concept related to the building such as.....  

message: Is there any genuine reason why we would actually need an independent article on Green Building on College Campuses as a separate topic from this one? Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge tag 

message: It would seem to me that this kind of article, one that discusses specific campuses and the on-going green building projects, should be a PROJECTS page of its own.  Perhaps referenced from the GREEN BUILDING section, like the MIT link. In doing this, you provide the generic information that most people look for and links to specific projects where such information has been applied. It might well serve the public if the Project portions linked from the generic GREEN BUILDING section, held specifics as applied in the project. The PROJECT sections would then serve as a place to find answers and ideas that address specific concerns when applying GREEN BUILDING techniques.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.253.225.0 (talk) 04:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I, too, think that a green buildings article should include more than campus green buildings and campus green building efforts, often in their institutional sustainability initiatives. MaynardClark (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Green Building our Colleges 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Green building. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081121092246/http://www.jgpress.com/inbusiness/archives/_free/000648.html to http://www.jgpress.com/inbusiness/archives/_free/000648.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Green building. 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:
*Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20160516212043/http://blog.kmccontrols.com/index.php/2015/09/24/whats-your-iq-on-iaq-ieq/ to http://blog.kmccontrols.com/index.php/2015/09/24/whats-your-iq-on-iaq-ieq/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Green building. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130722180030/http://www.capitalmarketspartnership.com/UserFiles/Admin%20GSA%20June%202008%20-%20Assessing%20Green%20Building%20Performance.pdf to http://www.capitalmarketspartnership.com/UserFiles/Admin%20GSA%20June%202008%20-%20Assessing%20Green%20Building%20Performance.pdf
*Added  tag to http://naturallywood.com/uploadedFiles/General/Green_Building/Module-3_Energy_Conservation.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Green building. 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:
*Added  tag to http://www.wbdg.org/designsustainable.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131219035552/http://www.usgbc.org/leed/rating-systems/commercial-interiors to http://www.usgbc.org/leed/rating-systems/commercial-interiors
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110422173721/http://aafa.org/display.cfm?id=9&sub=18&cont=231 to http://www.aafa.org/display.cfm?id=9&sub=18&cont=231
*Added  tag to http://naturallywood.com/uploadedFiles/General/Green_Building/Module-6_Health_and_Wellbeing.pdf
*Added  tag to http://naturallywood.com/uploadedFiles/General/Green_Building/Module-5_Durability_and_Adaptability.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101219124240/http://sustainca.org/programs/green_buildings_challenges to http://sustainca.org/programs/green_buildings_challenges
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120529044646/http://www.naturallywood.com/sites/default/files/Building-Green-and-Benefits-of-Wood.pdf to http://www.naturallywood.com/sites/default/files/Building-Green-and-Benefits-of-Wood.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: I am new to Wikipedia, but not to green building.  Apologies, but why is there a paragraph on BIM?  BIM is building information modeling, which can be done for a brown building as well as a green one.  What might be more important in this article is a paragraph on building controls and environmental management. This 2020 article from New Zealand suggests that building professionals who use BIM think it is useful for green buildings, but that is only about 50% of those surveyed had used this product. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.103931 I'm not against BIM per se; but I think including it as a feature on green building fosters a sense that green buildings have to be high tech and LEED certified. This is counter to the idea of natural buildings, which are green in a different way.  (I think there is another similar comment above).  To summarize, I would suggest qualifying the text on BIM (BIM itself is not necessarily green) and adding a section on energy management systems (which are usually separate to BIM).Katyjanda (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a reason why BIM is mentioned?