Talk:Zero waste

message: I disagree that the zero waste movement has declined. Maybe it is not very visible or hyped anymore. Maybe some people are just bored with environmentalim. But there are lots of people working on these issues in many parts of the world.
RaiNbOWARrior 00:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not declining

message: People in the environmental movement in general have been feeling weary...but zero waste is prospering.  Any statement about decline must be quantified...I would say it is increasing as evidenced by increasing number of cities adopting zero waste. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tvinson (talk • contribs) 21:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I agree, the zero waste movement is not declining 

message: At present this is more of an  advocacy essay, than an encyclopedic article. I'm beginning some changes: first, removal of a long quote--not customary in WP style, and removal of local example(s).DGG (talk) 02:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: coming back a year later, it's gotten worse. I'm going to get at it again. I am not sure how much will be left. This is not a place for term papers. See  our guide to writing Wikipedia articles for an explanation of how to write an encyclopedia article. DGG (talk) 02:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for bringing this up, keep up the hard work.  Some work on incorporating the references into the body would be an admittedly time-consuming but well-respected task! Misterx2000 (talk) 18:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  171.51.223.193 (talk) 10:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: style

message: As the inventor and developer of the name and concepts of Zero Waste as reported in the article, I am dismayed by the turn the article has taken. Simple recycling concepts and misapplied attention to reducing dumping have become equated to Zero Waste even though the more theoretical treatment states clearly that Zero Waste is more than just recycling or keeping trash out of dumps. In other words, the principles are stated, then ignored as the article proceeds and the concept of Zero Waste is then downgraded and contaminated with now discredited concepts. Zero Waste is a design principle, it is not a waste management technique as suggested in some parts of the article. It makes no sense to state that Zero Waste is not about scrambling to recycle after discard and then tout putative Zero Waste successes as no more than recycling or garbage reduction. It is also important, and completely overlooked, that not every group and every plan that claims to be about Zero Waste is actually on that subject. Most in fact are about recycling, pure and simple, and make no practical reference to redesign.
Coming back in November 2010, I have refined the application of ZW to actual processes. I have reluctantly left many of the misleading discussions of ZW added by recyclers who care nothing for the distinction between ZW and recycling. It seems to me that there is an article on recycling which people should go to if they want information on that subject. ZW is a different topic and this article should not be treated as an extension of the recycling article. Also, there are many misunderstandings and erroneous interpretations that permeate the discussion. If ZW is a design principle to avoid discard, it cannot be discussed in a context of reusing waste products. That is the domain of the recycler. It cannot be discussed as a way to reduce the amount of garbage going to dumps. Dumps and garbage are not the measures of ZW. Success in eliminating discard is the measure of ZW and if that reduces garbage than so be it but dumps are not part of the high design of any society. They are only a measure of the failure of a society to design its products and operations in conformity with living as lightly on the planet as possible.
By misinterpreting ZW as a subset of the recycling movement, the other editors have deprived the public of the recognition that here is a concept which is far more insightful than the primitive concepts of recycling. The writing thus cloaks the unique contribution that Zero Waste makes to environmental theory by dumbing Zero Waste down to the level of the local dump.
In a spirit of editorial collegiality, I have not at this time eliminated those misleading interpretations.
It would be good to add in some references to concepts, regulations and the like but the field is vast, with literally millions of potential links to the many topics touched on. It is a daunting task to pick out a reasonable number.
Paul Palmer - Zerowaster (talk) 07:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: contents

message: In general, I find editing to be an almost impossible task unless I limit myself to the simplest of textual additions and changes. The Manual of Style (while interesting and on the mark) is so long that all I can do with it is skim, ponder and hope some residue remains long after. The details of how to accomplish links and references and footnotes etc. etc. are utterly beyond me. Why can't there be a permanent menu while you are editing that you can click on to get a thumbnail of how to put in a link or a punctuation mark or a box or a reference (okay, tell me there is and I never noticed it). Editing is a monumental chore and it seems that only a small group of cognoscenti can actually do it.
A propos of a particular example, I wanted to edit the very top of the page, the introduction, which is rife with factual error. There was no [edit] button for it that I could see so I went to the very top of the page where it says Edit This Page. This brought up a download menu saying that I asked to download a file called index.php and where do I want to save it. I found this infuriating because I emphatically did NOT ask to download any file and I DO NOT want to save it and I have no idea of why this happened. I thought it could be a phishing attempt so I closed the download but it comes up every time. 
For a program that is supposed to be open to the world to contribute edits to, this software seems to be the main obstacle. I am astounded by the sheer number of topics that have been created so I wonder what I am missing. Are there millions of people who manage to take courses in Wiki editing? I don't know the answer but I have a very hard time negotiating this software.
Zerowaster (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing the top of the page 

message: Hello, I am taking an environmental policy course at San Francisco State University and researching a Zero Waste program in Oakland, CA. I found your article very helpful in explaining the differences between recycling and zero waste philosophies.  I was hoping to find some information about local programs that are in practice and working or a link to such in California. I believe the link to a CA program takes you to a recycling program rather than a Zero Waste program. Looking forward to pursuing the topic in more detail and contributing more later. Simone8855 (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  feedback 

message: Strong bias in the implication the politicians are being bought by the waste industry without citation. "Zero Waste has received no support from the garbage industry or politicians under their control except in those cases where it can be claimed to consist solely of more recycling." Without citation this is blatantly biased.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.21.164.238 (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute 

message: Perhaps worth to mention or at least use as reference ?:
* http://www.chelseagreen.com/bookstore/item/the_zero_waste_solution:paperback
* http://www.zerowasteeurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/San-Sebastian.TEN-STEPS-Short-Zero-Waste-Paul-Connett.pdf
KVDP (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Books

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Zero waste. 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.zerowastecanada.ca/images/pdf/zw-hierarchy-6-0.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100506035015/http://www.zerowasteaustralia.org:80/ to http://www.zerowasteaustralia.org/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051125033511/http://www.recyclingtoday.com/news/news.asp?ID=1605 to http://www.grrn.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello, this articles needs to update the list of cities who have goals of being zero waste and needs to provide more current information on the policy proposals aimed at achieving zero waste. Moreso, it would be useful to track changes in the practice of zero waste living since 2011. Eunice.AKI (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Creating an up-to-date list of cities with policy enactments is not possible since there are no registries for this. TheKevlar 22:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Update needed

message: I've been trying to find a standardized symbol I can use to show that my product has zero waste packaging, but it seems either there is no standard symbol(s); or they're just not consolidated and named as such.  This would be a great place to do so. 184.147.162.200 (talk) 03:36, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  symbol?