Talk:Compressed earth block

message: ?:( --Jangirke (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is NON EXPANSIVE CLAY? 

message: I recently edited the lead before reading the talk page. I read the article and determined the content was about compressed earth blocks (CEB) and stabilized compressed earth blocks (SCBE) so I made the lead reflect the content and changed it to paragraph form. Now that I have read the above move discussion it seems the article is supposed to cover all types of earth block including non-compressed blocks. However, in my opinion non-compressed earth blocks are the same thing as adobe and mudbrick which are currently in a merge discussion so there should not be yet another article covering them. I would have opposed the move, although I do not know what the article was moved from. Earth structure is a good catch-all article for the many types of earth building. Jim Derby (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is what makes it a distinct product within the more general category. The article move was a total mistake, as it exapanded the scope of the article well beyond its intended scope and made it redundant to other articles. I am going to be bold and move it back. oknazevad (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

text: If you see the discussion at Talk:Adobe#Merge discussion II, you'll see that the above discussion is based on factual errors that were never addressed by the above move discussion. There already is an article for earth structure, and for mudbrick, as well as adobe. This article has always been about a specific and particular type of technology. Expanding the article would be utterly redundant, and would leave inadequate coverage of a specific technology while other technologies within the category have their own articles. In short, it would be article hijacking, and a terrible decision. The consensus was based on erroneous understanding of the technology, and the extent of our coverage of it. Simply put, it's objectively wrong. oknazevad (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, may be a case for another move discussion then.--Cúchullain t/c 18:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continued discussion on move to earth block 

message: The purported advantages of this building material are given in great detail. Nevertheless, I am sure that there must also be some disadvantages to it, relative to other materials. Otherwise, this article will read too much like an advertisement. Russ3Z (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It did read like an advertisement. So I added a whole list of disadvantages. I can think of quite a few more, like the logistics of drying the bricks, but at least these disadvantages have citations.... Oo, I just thought of another one...86.83.56.115 (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disadvantages section needed 

message: The article seems to presuppose production on-site and this may well be the most common usage case, but is this the only one? Can the bricks also be produced in a centrally located factory and then delivered to the site of final use? Or is there only a narrow window of time during which the bricks can be used for building? (E.g. They have to have a certain remaining moisture content to properly bind to other bricks in the building). While this may - for various reasons - be unimportant to current usage cases, those can change and it behooves an encyclopedia to at least address what is and isn't technologically feasible in principle... Hobbitschuster (talk) 09:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The purpose of it is for creating the blocks on the site, so not wasting in transportation and using the moisture that is the the site, so a place doesn't has to be mined. 38.140.18.131 (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ability to produce off-site and store 

message: Would require rebar reinforcement? 47.219.87.72 (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not suitable for earthquake zones?