Talk:Environmental noise

message: one thought: (nuisance) isn't what could be called an encyclopedic term, exactly. is my previous suggestion (environmental) so far fetched? -- Kku 12:52 30 May 2003 (UTC)
As we agreed, I have moved noise (nuisance) to noise (environmental).  However, I would like to defend the word nuisance.  It is used in a legal context in the UK (and probably elsewhere) to mean something that interferes with another's right to enjoyment.  I changed it not because it was not 'encyclopedic', but because it was too narrow. -- Heron
:yup, see nuisance Whitejay251 14:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Nuisance vs Environmental

message: The middle two paragraphs should be moved and merged into noise music and a mere mention left behind to illustrate subjectivity of noise. I'm slapping on a cleanup tag. Whitejay251 14:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: and nominating at AID Whitejay251 15:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Noise music

message: Do hyperacousis and auditive hypersensibility belong to this page? After all, they produce more unwanted noise for their sufferers. --anon
* No I don't think so, but they deserve their own pages linked from here. --Lindosland 21:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hyperacousis & auditive hypersensibility 

message: This page is now one of many forming a hierarchy under Noise. Please look at that page before editing this, and also note my comments regarding the fact that noise is not a good candidate for disambiguation. There's much to do by way of expanding and cross-linking now, but please do so with reference to the 'root page' --Lindosland 17:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Building Noise Hierarchy 

message: this article is about environmental noise as it is defined in Europe AND about noise regulation in Europe. It's no good idea to mix this content with other articles, because there are analog differences like Noise mitigation, Noise pollution, Noise regulation etc. --Fmrauch (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a dictionary for definitions and article titles should be relatable to the content contained within. This article is named environmental noise and should be about environmental noise, not environmental noise as is specially defined in Europe and certainly not noise regulation in Europe. There is next to no information in this article about actual environmental noise and this page should redirect to a page that actually has content about such, specifically the much more complete noise pollution. The content currently on this page is completely relating to noise regulation in Europe, and as such should be merged to Noise regulation. Please explain clearly what you mean by "analog differences". I see no reason why this content cannot be merged into a section of Noise regulation. Reatlas (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Some remarks about systematics and encyclopedia: I don't know, if environmental noise is defined otherwise or if it is common wordwide. But we have words in every language, which can't be translated 1:1. For example in Germany we have different words like Krach, Geräusch, Lärm. Of course, WP is not a dictionary, but if you are looking for a word or a definition, you'll be looking what is written in Wikipedia. In most cases you read WP in your own language. But sometimes it is interesting to read versions in other languages. The problem occurs that there are different systematics in the different languages. Articles which describe German law may have equivalent articles in other languages - especially concerning the law in other European countries. And sometimes it is very important to compare the situations in the different countries. May be that a view from USA differs from a view from UK. I am sorry that we mostly describe the situation in our own country though it would be interesting what people from other countries could contribute. Perhaps you may have a look in the categories? What is better: a long article which summarizes all aspects - or a few articles which describe different definitions and views? What is the main topic? Noise - but how many arcticles are possible? Would you like to summarize all articles concerning noise in only one article? What is the target of each language? Describing the situation in your own country - UK for example? Well, I don't know how to solve these problems. But perhaps this article can be expanded soon so that it will become more clear. By the way - I have similar problems with Limited company - in Germany "Aktiengesellschaft"; the result is that we have articles for different countries, not languages! --House1630 (talk) 11:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

text:  I just found under GOOGLE  more than 1 million hits! --House1630 (talk) 11:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing wrong with having an article relating uniquely to a certain country or regions, in itself. But the issue here is that this article does not appear to have the required notability or content to warrant its own article. Articles like cellular noise and electronic noise are separate because they all have enough content to fill their own pages even though they come under the broad umbrella term of noise. In comparison, this page has been in a stub state for near all of its 10 years of existence, and what content it now has is purely relating to noise regulation in Europe, and is short enough that it could (and I feel should) be merged with noise regulation. With regards to hits, hits alone does not mean a topic should have its own page. For example searching color gets 3.8 billion hits, while searching colour gets 155 million. But on Wikipedia one redirects to the other because they are about the same thing and would only be duplicating unnecessarily which is what this page is doing. Reatlas (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is wrong! The article was a stub until 7 years ago and was then merged with Noise pollution - see . At that time, the European definition was not in the focus and there was no reason for an own article. But things changed in the meantime, and I am just going to expand the artice, trying to break the border which is given through the small view of the German version. And what do you suppose to link with the German version :de:Umgebungslärm ? --Fmrauch (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: We could link the German page with a European section of Noise regulation or Noise pollution. I don't think we need regional versions of every page on Wikipedia just because a direct translation comes up with a different article name. My issue is that the article title does not match the content that is contained within. This page has a single sentence about actual environmental noise in a global perspective and then even still in the introduction it goes into European environmental noise regulation. The page as it currently exists, and as you hope to expand it, is not about environmental noise but about noise regulation which is why I think the content might be better presented by being merged with noise regulation. This debate has stretched on for almost two weeks with zero progress towards consensus; If you are determined to keep this page then so be it I will argue no further, I have wasted enough of my time. Reatlas (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Own article

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Environmental noise. 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/20101123022847/http://ec.europa.eu:80/environment/noise/pdf/com_96_540.pdf to http://ec.europa.eu/environment/noise/pdf/com_96_540.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) 23:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion