Template talk:Environmental technology/Archive01

message: This template does not make logical sense in its current format. Some of the "environmental technologies" have nothing to do with technology- Reuse is not an environmental technology, it is a component of the waste hierarchy.
I suggest this template is redesigned into key areas as follows (please add to this if you see it relevant:
*Blue skies environmental technology
*Clean water treatment technology
*Energy conservation technology
*Environmental strategy 
*Renewable energy
*Remediation
*Solid waste treatment technology
*Waste water treatment technology
Each of these could have a list directing in turn to the relevant technological solution. I.E. I have been working on waste technology and I have created a page List of waste treatment technologies under which AD, composting, MBT all feature with many others. 
--Alex 14:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not just a waste management template.  This is a general template.  I am not going to erase the good links.  However, I am going to replace the links that are in fact correct, that were incorrectly deleted prior to current edits... --Hard Raspy Sci 19:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested new format for template

message: Entries that keep getting deleted by experts are not there for experts.  Those links and templates are here for people interested in the subject matter that are not experts!!! ok? - Hard Raspy Sci 18:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, you are wrong.  Simply, technology is the application of science(s) (period). --Hard Raspy Sci 19:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As science is in many forms, so is technology. --Hard Raspy Sci 19:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inappropriately Deleted Links and Templates

message: I have removed the Preservation link since it directed to the National Wildlife Refuge. A generic template for international issues should not have inappropriate links to a specific country. Alan Liefting 09:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Preservation

message: I do not agree with the inclusion of Conservation ethic and Conservation biology in this template. Also, should it have the header of Environmental science and the second line of Environmental technology?  Why not simply have Environmental technology? Alan Liefting 09:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having the environmental science link as a header suggests that environmental technologies are a subset of the science.  This is not the case they are linked bat in a parallel manner rather than one being a subset of the other. Alan Liefting 23:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I agree but the template should be renamed to 'Environmental technologies' and either the Environmental science link should be renamed to Environmental Engineering or should be removed compeltely. Supposed 12:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs a rehash 

message: I removed Conservation biology and Conservation ethic. Conservation biology is a science not a technology.  Conservation ethic is a philosophy not a technology. Alan Liefting 23:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of irrelevant entries 

message: Conservation biology is not a technology it's a science. Conservation ethics are exactly that ethics,. there aren't even any examples of any technologies in the ethics article!
Admittedly digestion and composting aren't technologies either, they're processes but there are technologies based around them as there is with recyling and reuse.
Lastly just how many technogies are even listed in this template, the majority of things listed in this template are not strictly technologies. Supposed 06:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, you are wrong and ill informed, please stop editing this.  And absolutely quit editing this template, as you are obviously not an expert on the subject matter.  If I have hurt your feelings, too bad.  Your edits are in fact becoming vandalism, and your opinions are wrong. -- Hard Raspy Sci 19:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This template is a mess 

message: Is this some sort of joke? Why is this listed as a technology? I'm sure there are technologies which aim to preserve things (hey every other technology listed in this template aims to do that!...) but you can't seriously put the 'National Wildlife Refuge' in this template, it's utterly absurd to do so...
It has absoutely nothing to do with Environmental Technologies and there is actually more preservation taking place through appropriate use of technology in the other articles.
Please remove it and kindly do not revert the template again, it would be silly to turn this into a revert war, I can't see you getting much suppoert if it comes to that.  Supposed 07:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Coming from the National Wildlife Refuge side, I don't even know why this template is on its page. I removed it today. ClarkBHM 16:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Wildlife Refuge? 

message: This template seems to be pretty well-focused now, but it really wants renaming to something like 'Waste Management Technologies'. 'Environmental technology' is too general in nature. Is this technically possible?
ropable 06:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will withdraw this comment, being in agreement with User:Vortexrealm. The template does not make logical sense at the moment.
--ropable 05:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in absolute agreement, unfortunately, this template has been edited into the wrong direction...and I am currently fixing it... -- Hard Raspy Sci 19:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming this Template