Appropedia:Village pump: Difference between revisions

{{Appropedia:Village pump/Introduction}}

== Changing another person's project page ==

:This cooker is relevant for any place where rice is a grown and is a staple of the diet (all of Asia, as well as parts of Africa and South America).

::Belated comment: do we have a policy or guideline on user space essays? I'd like to keep article space as factual as possible, where a "fact" is something that all sane people can agree on, and confine assertions of opinion to user space essays. Users can have more freedom to express their personal opinions on user subpages, but I'd still like every opinion to be labeled as an opinion rather than implied to be a fact by asserting it with no qualification. Readers should be made aware of whether they are reading facts generally accepted as true, or just one particular side of some raging controversy. I.e., assertions should not float around independently of their context. Unfortunately, too many people tend to hold their beliefs independently of such context. That is, they just believe whatever they believe, without being mindful of the existence of other opinions about some of their beliefs. --[[User:Teratornis|Teratornis]] 12:58, 1 November 2011 (PDT)

:::I'm thinking about examples we have discussed on this very page of articles that contain prescriptive rather than descriptive content, or religious claims. As long as content is not actionable, libelous, illegal, etc. I see little harm in letting it live in user space as long as it is clearly labeled as opinion (see [[wikipedia:Template:Essay]] which I would like to port to {{SITENAME}}). Anything on {{SITENAME}} is subject to the approval of the {{SITENAME}} community and that should be an appropriate check on user space essays. The idea is not to unleash some new type of content on {{SITENAME}} but merely to relocate some of the personal opinion content that has been finding its way into article space.

:::* <small>(11:53, 2 November 2011 (PDT): adding another topic:)</small> What I have done to cut my personal carbon footprint, and what I have learned from the exercise about what it would actually take to stabilize atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration at some level that might minimize the risk of dangerous climate change

:::I could edit what I want to say about the [[Keystone XL pipeline]] into the existing article, but my contribution would not be particularly encyclopedic, as I would be advocating for a particular course of action (namely, action to reduce the demand for liquid fuels which I believe is driving the exploitation of Canada's tar sands). Then again, the existing article is not particularly encyclopedic. But I would find it easier to say what I want to say in a user space essay, keeping my exposition coherent, and then if the community approved of working some of it into the article proper we could do that. I'm not so much interested in shaping {{SITENAME}}'s "official" stance on particular topics as to have a platform where I can work out my current positions on them. I find when I engage in online discussions, there are points I want to make which are complex, unobvious, and require a lot of background, and I can't always find an existing page on the Web somewhere that I can cite to explain what I'm talking about.

:::Alternatively I could set up a blog site and write essays on it, but I'd just as soon use my user space on {{SITENAME}} because I like editing on [[MediaWiki]]. --[[User:Teratornis|Teratornis]] 19:59, 1 November 2011 (PDT)

::::Ok, this is now getting very interesting. I see no problem at all in what you propose under existing [[A:policies]] and [[A:guidelines]]. (We only have proposed guidelines actually, and mainly have proposed policies.) And as you can see, you're being a lot more cautious and deliberate about it than much of what happens on Appropedia - which is good, because:

::::What would make you comfortable in starting to write on Appropedia about the topics you mention - e.g. re liquid fuel and the Keystone XL pipeline? Do you want to make a proposed policy or guideline, based on what you've said above? --[[User:Chriswaterguy|Chriswaterguy]] 22:08, 1 November 2011 (PDT)

:::::*Comfort: I'm comfortable now. (You plus me equals consensus, it seems. Just kidding - I think.) I have some notes and references on my personal (offline) wiki that I can transcribe to {{SITENAME}}. My main concern is to maximize the comfort of the rest of the community. That is, to make sure everyone who might have an interest in what I would write, whether positive or negative, understands the structure in which we can express our ideas and debate them. I think it is less than optimally productive for debate to play out in the form of [[wikipedia:WP:EDSUM|edit summaries]] to articles in article space. It would be better, I think, to let each person have their user space as a kind of refuge where they elaborate their ideas, and then we discuss on talk pages somewhere (perhaps on this page, unless it gets overloaded) what the "official" {{SITENAME}} article about a topic should say. As I mentioned, I am not too concerned about whether I agree with what the article on a topic says - I will happily defer to the community - as long as I have a place to write what I think about it. On Wikipedia, controversial articles may come to resemble [[wikipedia:Professional wrestling match types#Enclosure-based variations|steel cage matches]], I suspect in part because people with uncompromising opinions lack a separate platform where they can write what they think. Wikipedia has a policy against advocating for particular positions anywhere on the site, including user pages. I don't think we need that restriction on {{SITENAME}}, primarily because the diversity of opinion is less here. Just about everyone who edits on {{SITENAME}} probably agrees we face large environmental and humanitarian crises; any disagreements are more likely to be over the details of how we might solve them. We probably don't have too many people who, for example, explicitly deny the existence of man-made global warming. If necessary we might have something like a "Lonny test" - you can advocate for anything you want in your user space as long as [[User:Lonny|Lonny]] is cool with it. That might sound kind of facetious but in fact on every wiki what is allowable must ultimately come down to one person who has the final say, as necessary to break deadlocks when the community cannot reach consensus. (On Wikipedia, [[wikipedia:User:Jimbo|Jimbo]] has the final say, but he exercises it rarely.)

:::::**A side note: it seems we have some "proposed" [[:Category:Appropedia proposed policies|policies]] and [[:Category:Appropedia proposed guidelines|guidelines]] that seem to remain "proposed" forever. Perhaps this is because we have primarily one user (you) who seems to propose them, and then nobody else weighs in. It would be nice to somehow tie up these loose ends. For example, if a guideline has been in the "proposed" state for more than a year, perhaps we could [[A:BOLD|be bold]] and automatically promote it to a real guideline. If someone objects later, we can always debate the guideline then. On a wiki, everything is subject to revision in perpetuity.

::::::"For example, if a guideline has been in the "proposed" state for more than a year, perhaps we could [[A:BOLD|be bold]] and automatically promote it to a real guideline." '''First thoughts''': Sounds good. My suggestion for "best practice" is: If possible, flag the particular policies and guidelines that are planned for upgrade a week or two in advance, on Village Pump; the person who promotes it to policy/guideline status should not be the major contributor to the drafting of it; and the upgrading is announced on the Village Pump, along with a brief and accurate summary of the new policy/guideline and a note that it remains open to reversion and revision. '''Second thoughts''': If people don't actively object, there's a bias towards instruction creep{{w|Instruction creep}} here (and note the Wikipedia essay [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep]]. At the very least, we need to ask ourselves before promoting a policy or guideline: ''Is this really necessary? Can it be simplified'' I'm ok with not everything I wrote getting approved - I'm sure I've changed my mind on some of it anyway. --[[User:Chriswaterguy|Chriswaterguy]] 02:08, 3 November 2011 (PDT)

:::::::I consider [[wikipedia:WP:CREEP]] to be unfortunately ignorant of what actually makes Wikipedia work, which is having extremely complete written instructions. See [[wikipedia:WP:NOCOMMON|there is no common sense]]. WP:CREEP reminds me too much of those programmers with borderline [[wikipedia:Asperger syndrome]] and minimal verbal skills, who seem to believe if something is obvious to them then it is obvious to everyone. The world has many people like that who churn out confusion and horizontal fragmentation every day. (By "horizontal fragmentation" I mean making things different in ways which provide no net improvement, such as having 50 different functionally equivalent word processing programs that all have different commands to do the same tasks. Thus the urge to "simplify" by not writing detailed instructions actually ends up making things more complex, as you end up with excessive variation providing no benefit, which people must then deal with.) I'd say if WP:CREEP has a point, it would be to avoid writing bad instructions, that is instructions which do not reflect the actual practice of the editing community. But the claim that "nobody reads the instructions" is just dumbfounding - people who don't read instructions on Wikipedia simply create problems that have to be fixed by people who do read the instructions. Over time, the people who refuse to read instructions find themselves embroiled in various controversies, and they tend to get discouraged and leave. They become what [[wikipedia:Fred Brooks|Fred Brooks]] called "[http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/gbell/high_tech_ventures/00000146.htm negatively productive people]". In a dispute on Wikipedia, odds are one or both sides do not understand the relevant instructions, because most disputes on Wikipedia are repeats of past disputes, whose resolutions were encoded into guidelines or policies. Instructions (and [[wikipedia:WP:SHORTCUT|shortcuts]] that point to them) are also vital for leaving understandable [[wikipedia:WP:EDITSUMMARY|edit summaries]], especially for formal edits (edits that change the article format rather than the content).

:* Wikipedia's instructions are difficult for many people to read, in a start to finish sense like one reads a novel. They are probably difficult even for most Wikipedia editors to read that way. And yet Wikipedia's pages show remarkable conformance to its rules, such as [[wikipedia:WP:LAYOUT]] and the rest of the style and naming conventions. How can this be? Quite easily: Wikipedia obviously does not rely on everybody reading all the rules start to finish like a novel before they get started. New editors will unwittingly violate many rules. More experienced editors will correct their violations, and leave [[wikipedia:WP:EDITSUMMARY|edit summaries]] that refer to the rules (or better which link to the rules being applied via [[A:SC|shortcuts]] e.g. [[wikipedia:WP:LOWERCASE]]). A new editor who notices that something he or she edited has changed can look at the [[wikipedia:WP:PAGEHISTORY|history]] of a page, read the relevant edit summary, and browse directly to the rule that was applied. As long as the link destination is a reasonably self-contained description of that rule, the new editor should be able to comprehend it, and then go on to apply it to other non-conforming edits while leaving the same quality of breadcrumb documentation in edit summaries. In this way the rules get woven into the structure of the edit histories of many pages, making each page self-documenting in terms of its rule violations and corrections. Thus each new editor can be efficiently apprenticed by experienced editors, and can possibly avoid ever having to read all the rules straight through like a novel (although there is value to doing so at some point, to get a global view of the individual rules he or she had internalized from experience).

Prompted by a comment by Teratornis [[#User tools for spam fighting?|above]], I've been thinking about good small wikis. I agree it's hard to find good small wikis as they don't have the resources of the Wikimedia wikis, but here are some that I found interesting in various ways:

* http://www.grassrootswiki.org - nice skin & front page. (Not active, though about half a year ago they organized a worthwhile meetup of development wikis, which I joined by phone.)

* [[Greenlivingpedia:|Greenlivingpedia]] - smaller than Appropedia, but with a high average quality of articles. Largely the work of one guy, Peter Campbell who I've met a few times as he's a fellow Australian. Not at the bleeding edge, but he keeps on top of the tech side.

* http://www.richmondwiki.org/wiki - I came across their blog - looks like they keep up to date & understand the tech side well

* [[Wikia:|Wikia]] - the leading wiki farm/community of communities, have developed some social features & have clearly put thought into what gets people engaged. I have mixed feelings on the features - some I like, but mostly I need to look more closely at how they're used.

Fan wikis - there are a bunch of them, many on Wikia. One that impresses me is:

* http://battlestarwiki.org - nicely maintained, active wiki.

The fact that many of the successful smaller wikis revolve around tv shows or movies tells us something crucial - humans tend to engage based on fun, stories and shared passions. The brutal truth seems to be that we evolved to gossip more than we evolved to care for or environment, or for people outside our immediate group. But I don't want to focus on something I can't change, so I'm interested in how we can harness fun & stories, & channel our passions. But that another set of topics :). --[[User:Chriswaterguy|Chriswaterguy]] 11:03, 16 July 2011 (PDT)

:Yes, humans remain intensely interested in redecorating the ''Titanic'' even as they begin sliding down the listing deck. One sees the same thing on Wikipedia, with the detailed articles about every known footballer, anime character, and anything else that is useless to know. The vast majority of humans are oblivious to the fact that our fossil fuel habit is [http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-rising-ten-times-faster-than-petm-extinction.html increasing the carbon dioxide content of the Earth's atmosphere at an even faster rate] than it increased leading to the [[wikipedia:Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum|Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum]] - the most catastrophic known period of natural climate change to hit the Earth during the Age of Mammals. If humans had any idea of how dire our situation is, we'd have all hands on deck working toward the needed solution, which is to figure how we are going to drive everyone's carbon footprint below two tonnes per year (or maybe less) as quickly as possible. It is abundantly clear that our [[wikipedia:evolutionary psychology|evolutionary psychology]] is still optimized for advancing our social prospects in the Pleistocene, not for coping with the consequences of our advanced technology. --[[User:Teratornis|Teratornis]] 21:59, 16 July 2011 (PDT)

::There are a good number people who gather online to share ideas about tackling climate change. This tends to happen most on sites that cater to people's social wiring. The challenge for us to find ways to work with that, but make connections with knowledge resources to help make change. --[[User:Chriswaterguy|Chriswaterguy]] 21:51, 20 July 2011 (PDT)

:The [http://wiki.cancer.org.au/australia/Main_Page Cancer Council Australia Wiki] is an interesting wiki. It uses Semantic forms, and clinicians have managed to fill out pages by themselves. It also has specific places within articles to invite comments - using extensions/tweaks developed by [[wikipedia:User:Werdna]] (who also develops the coming LiquidThreads 3.0 for the Wikimedia Foundation, among other things). The current policy is to have a comment section for each section of an article. Not that we'd want to copy that. --[[User:Chriswaterguy|Chriswaterguy]] 18:33, 19 January 2012 (PST) ''edited description of Cancer Council Wiki. [[User:Chriswaterguy|Chriswaterguy]] 19:12, 30 January 2012 (PST)''

[http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/ Meatball Wiki] and [http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WelcomeVisitors Portland Pattern Repository] are pioneer wikis using the UseModWiki engine, about programming and online communities - they're still maintained, and run on . --[[User:Chriswaterguy|Chriswaterguy]] 20:43, 9 June 2012 (PDT)

Another way is to move the article to someone's userspace. But the advantage of the "Attic" is that anyone can browse all such articles if they want.

Either way, best practice would be to uncheck the box to create a redirect when moving. If the page isn't very good, we don't want to direct people there from mainspace.

Maybe I'm thinking too much... anyway, please comment if you have preferences either way. And... happy new year! --[[User:Chriswaterguy|Chriswaterguy]] 20:58, 7 January 2012 (PST)

:To me, the "Attic" sounds a lot like the [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Article Incubator]] - a place for nonindexed pages deemed worthy of further work before returning them to article space. All this raises three basic questions for me. What are the criteria for userfying a page? What are the criteria for throwing a page into the Attic/Incubator? Most importantly, what are the criteria for a page to remain in article space? The more I play [http://www.appropedia.org/Special:Random Surprise me!] the more I think there very easily could be (put your number here) of articles that wouldn't meet even basic criteria for inclusion in article space, and iffy in Attic/Incubator space. What this says to me is Appropedia article space absolutely could use some cleaning up, one way or another. --[[User:RichardF|RichardF]] 17:17, 8 January 2012 (PST)

::Thanks RichardF... and for anyone reading this old discussion, please see [[A:Incubator]]. --[[User:Chriswaterguy|Chriswaterguy]] 20:18, 2 April 2013 (PDT)

== Speculative and potentially dangerous content ==

How should we deal with speculative content? What if it's for potentially dangerous applications, such as designing microlights and other aircraft?

I've moved some content of this type to userspace, and deleted some content that I was particularly concerned about. See the discussion at [[User talk:KVDP #Your autogyro]] and [[User talk:Chriswaterguy #Aircraft images]] for some of my reasoning.

But I'd like to know what you, fellow Appropedians, think about this. ([[A:Be bold|Be bold]] is a great policy, but I try to be less bold with admin actions.). --[[User:Chriswaterguy|Chriswaterguy]] 21:03, 23 February 2012 (PST)

:My first question would be about the legal implications. Aviation is heavily regulated in most civilized countries, so we'd have to avoid steering anyone in an illegal direction. My second question would be about whether the technology in question makes any attempt to be sustainable. Powered flight in its current form is (probably) the branch of transport technology most dependent on fossil fuels, in particular liquid fuels from petroleum. Powered flight places severe demands on the energy storage to weight ratio of an energy carrier. Flying is one of the most unsustainable activities an ordinary person might engage in. If {{SITENAME}} is going to promote any kind of flying, it should not rely on burning fossil fuels. Unless someone has figured out a way to do that, I think we have an endless number of more appropriate and sustainable things to write about. --[[User:Teratornis|Teratornis]] 20:53, 28 August 2012 (PDT)

::Great points. If someone has designs for a solar and/or human powered aircraft that has actually flown, I'd be happy to see this on Appropedia (with a big safety disclaimer, of course, plus something about regulatory issues). Then we're talking demonstration technology rather than practical transport solutions, but these things have value in technological development. --[[User:Chriswaterguy|Chriswaterguy]] 02:31, 11 September 2012 (PDT)

== URL to black list ==

There has been a lot of spam pointing to www DOT bigfreddy DOT com/nl/foto/aluminium/foto . Perhaps a domain we could blacklist? --[[User:Tahnok|Tahnok]] 07:19, 12 March 2012 (PDT)

:Thanks. I hadn't noticed that, or your comment, till now. I can't see any reason for anyone to post links to that site, on Appropedia, so I added the whole domain to [[MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist]]. I think the best approach is to use your judgement (since you have edit permissions for the blacklist) - we can always revert if there's a problem. --[[User:Chriswaterguy|Chriswaterguy]] 04:11, 15 August 2012 (PDT)

== Approforce! (Really?) ==

A question from our Facebook page - answer either here or there: [https://www.facebook.com/questions/10150727037084425/ What should we call a collaboration by a group of editors to improve a certain area of Appropedia, or to do a certain kind of task? This would help people know what needs work and what other people are up to, and provide a place to discuss strategy.]

Not many answers yet, but the most popular suggestions so far are Approcolab and Approforce. Not sure if I can make the question visible to non-FB users, so here's the full list:

I added Approforce, thinking that if I added something deliberately bad, others would come up with something better. Maybe it's not that bad... or maybe it really is. (Reminds me of the cry of "G-Force" from ''Battle of the Planets'' - showing my age...) Please vote & comment. --[[User:Chriswaterguy|Chriswaterguy]] 06:18, 8 May 2012 (PDT)

I do like the concept ... as I've been thinking about this sort of thing in [[urban planning]] and [[transport]] pages. I think ApproCollab or ApproProject get my votes (though could still call ourselves Approforce with tongue-in-cheek ;) ). --[[User:PatSunter|PatSunter]] 04:06, 21 May 2013 (PDT)

I have set up an [irc://irc.freenode.net/#appropedia-rc IRC channel with recent changes], similar to those which Wikimedia Foundation runs for its wikis. So you can hang your bots or yourself there now and follow happenings on Appropedia in real time.

Similarly to Wikimedia channels, only Recent changes bot (<code>[appropedia-rc]</code>) can post on channel.

If you encounter any weirdness, feel free to contact me either via email or directly on IRC.

Enjoy the new way to follow Appropedia!

— [[User:Danny B.|Danny B.]] 07:58, 23 May 2012 (PDT)

:A general notice: The [irc://irc.freenode.net/#appropedia #appropedia channel] is also active. [[A:IRC]] gives instructions on joining (using your browser at http://webchat.freenode.net/ or using a client such as Pidgin, Chatzilla or xchat. Danny B., Amgine, Tahnok & I are often there. --[[User:Chriswaterguy|Chriswaterguy]] 20:52, 9 June 2012 (PDT)

Here's a site many of us here might find interesting.

'''[http://www.onlineschools.org/ Online Schools] - Who We Are'''<br>

"Online Schools aims to be the premier portal for online education on the web. Our goal is not to revolutionize the concept of education, but rather to help bring people into the 21st century in terms of the way they perceive learning. Education is no longer simply about teachers and textbooks. In today's Internet age, education is now about infographics, blogs, e-books, web articles, YouTube, Wikipedia, and so much more. Thus, we at Online Schools do not propose to revolutionize education itself, but rather, we strive to revolutionize the way people think about and approach education.

'''United States [http://www.onlineschools.org/guides/ Schools Directory]'''<br>

"Our Schools Directory is, in our opinion, the best online [United States] colleges and universities resource available anywhere on the web. Hundreds of Online Schools staff members have put in thousands of hours to compile the scores of information needed to create this unparalleled database.

"Our unique and fully comprehensive database provides you with valuable information about every online program that is offered at every school in every state across the nation in the following categories: Online Certificate Programs, Online Certification, Online Training Programs, Online Associates Degree Programs, Online Bachelors Degree Programs, Online Masters Degree Programs, Online MBA Programs and Online PhD Programs.  

"You no longer need to waste your time trying to figure out how best to search for the most accurate or relevant information on the subject you are interested in studying. Simply use our directory, choosing your state and start browsing through the list of schools that offer pertinent online educational options. If your course of study exists in an online format, you will find it here, guaranteed."

--[[User:RichardF|RichardF]] 06:13, 13 July 2012 (PDT)

Here's a new template - {{tl|TOCbox}} - that can come in handy for pages, like this one, with long tables of contents. Among other things, you can set the width and height of this TOC-right-in-a-box. The default size is auto width and 500px high, about 25 lines. The optional parameters are listed below.

  |font-size=

  |border-width=

  |border-color=

  |width=auto - can be % or px

  |height=auto - can be px, 500px = about 25 lines

  |font-size=96% - can be px

  |border-width=0px

I added the scrolling box feature to {{tl|TOC right}}, making the new template unnecessary. This way, the new box capabilities already are added to existing {{tl|TOC right}} pages. --[[User:RichardF|RichardF]] 09:33, 21 July 2012 (PDT)

After looking at some pages using {{tl|TOC right}}, I changed the box default height to auto, so that short TOCs don't have lots of white space below them.  The height still can be set for long TOCs to keep their display within the viewing window. --[[User:RichardF|RichardF]] 13:01, 21 July 2012 (PDT)

:Accessibility note: This approach creates various accessibility issues. TOC is one of the most important parts of pages used for people with disabilities to navigate on page comfortably and this lowers down the comfort or in certain cases almost disables this navigation. Furthermore, on keyboard-less devices, such as tablets, scrollbar of scrolling area is not being displayed, so one may think that the TOC has say 25 items, while it has 50, but those are hidden and no indication of it. If I may suggest, I would strongly discourage you from using this approach.<br />Kind regards<br />— [[User:Danny B.|Danny B.]] 13:10, 21 July 2012 (PDT)

::Okay. I already changed to default height back to auto. Having over 25 TOC items causes it's own problems. --[[User:RichardF|RichardF]] 13:49, 21 July 2012 (PDT)

:::Time to do some archiving. Wiki talk pages are messy - I want us to get some funding to put in either a forum that integrates well with MediaWiki, or a native wiki forum like DPLforum LiquidThreads. ([[User:JRWR]] insists he's ironed the bugs out of LiquidThreads on his wiki.) --[[User:Chriswaterguy|Chriswaterguy]] 00:13, 5 August 2012 (PDT)

Here's a nice idea: [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:News_for_editors Wiktionary:News for editors]. "This page keeps editors abreast of recent clarifications of or changes to policy or best current practice, major changes to templates, and the like."

* [[Help:Semantic MediaWiki|Semantic MediaWiki]]. (It would be great to have a simple example of "how you can use Semantic MediaWiki on Appropedia. I haven't learnt to use it yet, other than in the [[Medical devices]] area where it's already been set up.)

== Let's have a monthly meeting - 2nd Sunday of the month? ==

See [[Appropedia:IRC #Regular meetings]].  

Who's interested? --[[User:Chriswaterguy|Chriswaterguy]] 04:24, 5 August 2012 (PDT)

: Sounds good to me! (5pm EST) --[[User:Tahnok|Tahnok]] 13:16, 5 August 2012 (PDT)

::Great! Let's start this month - Sunday 12 August (Monday morning in Asia/Australia/NZ). --[[User:Chriswaterguy|Chriswaterguy]] 10:16, 6 August 2012 (PDT)

Although I allready did a lot of work on it, there are still significant issues with [[vegetable oil as fuel]] and, [[Waste vegetable oil]], [[Pure plant oil as fuel]].

I would propose to rename vegetable oil as fuel to [[Plant oil as fuel]], Waste vegetable oil to [[Waste plant oil as fuel]]. The vegetable oil as fuel/Plant oil as fuel can then mention both (PPO and WPO), giving a reason of existance to this article.

Another thing I'd like to see renamed is [[Vegetable oils and fats]], can we rename this to [[Plant oils and fat]] I saw the term allready being used at http://www.cyberlipid.org/glycer/glyc0005.htm , and I feel that besides being more logical (as the oils aren't derived from vegetables), it will also increase traffick to the articles since it's immediatelly clear it isn't a copy of the -similarly named- wikipedia article. Let me know whether someone else or I can change the names, after that I can clean it up and add additional info

Can btw a Green tuning category be created at Portal:Green_living ? I'm especially thinking of  placing http://www.appropedia.org/PPO_single_tank_system and http://www.appropedia.org/PPO_two_tank_system in this category after we added a list of commercial companies distributing conversion kits for both. [[Special:Contributions/91.182.156.99|91.182.156.99]] 01:28, 6 August 2012 (PDT) aka User:KVDP

Hello 91.182.156.99 yeah nice work :)  I largely agree with your proposals - possibly 'used cooking oils' rather than 'waste plant oils' (in my mind a better description + helps to make it not be thought of as waste)

:: Hmm, used cooking oils sounds good, but then perhaps not only cooking oils may be reused ? Also, the short for it would be UCO, which sounds weird, and far-off from WVO, WPO (waste plant oils) is closer to this more commonly used term. 

I think there can be problems with listing kit vendors - I'll put something on the appropriate talk pages about this.  Think you may have kicked me back into doing some more work on the biofuels portal :) --[[User:Darren|Darren]] 04:51, 13 August 2012 (PDT)

[[Special:Contributions/91.182.31.72|91.182.31.72]] 08:33, 14 August 2012 (PDT)

==Projects==

:"I think it may be beneficial that other people would suggest projects (and perhaps articles) that are more meaningful/useful in the intrest of our mission." I agree - it's a matter of how to do it. I've used the {{tl|sp}} tag to add ideas to [[:Category:Suggested projects]] (not very elegant, but it's the best I've managed to do within the wiki.) I don't think any of them have been taken up, but if we have a lot of students involved, looking for projects, more might happen. If we have a kind of advisory board making their suggestions for key areas to develop, that might get some more attention (in addition to community suggestions, of course).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

<nowiki>Commercial links will be promptly deleted *UNLESS* they contain useful information about the subject. --></nowiki>

 

 

<pre><nowiki>{{subst:no ads}}</nowiki></pre>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's currently hard to know when someone's left a [http://www.appropedia.org/index.php?namespace=1&tagfilter=&days=30&title=Special%3ARecentChanges question or comment on a talk page] (or, more rarely, on a [http://www.appropedia.org/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&days=300&namespace=15 Category talk]/[http://www.appropedia.org/index.php?namespace=103&tagfilter=&days=300&title=Special%3ARecentChanges Original talk]/[http://www.appropedia.org/index.php?namespace=101&tagfilter=&days=300&title=Special%3ARecentChanges Portal talk] page). Let's make a section here for any discussions or questions that we find. Just add to the list, with or without a description of the question/discussion. (This is a stop-gap measure - I'm looking forward to getting an better solution.)

I have been porting a bunch of wikipedia templates over to get the nice table in the [[Arduino]] article. Tried to get the in to mm conversion working but getting errors -- if anyone that is more familiar with templates could have a look - it would be most appreciated. --[[User:J.M.Pearce|Joshua]] 19:18, 2 January 2013 (PST)

:The conversions appear to be working now. It just needed a few more templates. :-)  --[[User:RichardF|RichardF]] 17:56, 12 March 2013 (PDT)

I have been talking to Chris about an idea I've had for a direction we might consider for 2013. I thought it might be useful for me to try to explain it here.

I think it might be useful to collaborate to assess low-tech sanitation systems, particularly with regard to their effectiveness and safety.  There is a lot of technical information around the internet, but this is often hard to find and rarely subject to intense criticism.  If we could collate the information - particularly if we can encourage different experts to edit and discuss - I think his would be the start of an evidence-based toolkit for practitioners to understand interventions.  [[User:Joeturner|Joeturner]] 06:57, 14 January 2013 (PST)

 

 

 

 

 

 

What do you think about adding a translation widget to appropedia -- [http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&langpair=pt%7Cen&rurl=www.google.com&u=http://www.dicasblogger.com.br/2009/04/translator-widget-tradutor-para-blogs.html&usg=ALkJrhjZ2ydLGm9Rxn1MMQV-W9m9B1NSAA] ? --[[User:J.M.Pearce|Joshua]] 05:34, 2 May 2013 (PDT)

 

 

 

 

A glossary is tidier, arguable... but I'm okay with some untidiness if it's conducive to visibility and growth. Thoughts? --[[User:Chriswaterguy|Chriswaterguy]] 09:08, 8 May 2013 (PDT)

 

:Well, actually most of our traffic [[Appropedia:Village_pump#Appropedia_site_stats|comes from bots]] (Richard did not specify the type of bots above, presumably a lot of search engines plus A.N.Other).  I don't think the main issue is tidyness, but being honest with ourselves about the value of the content that we have.  If we have hundreds of pages with single lines of content - which is itself mostly only copied content from another wiki - then we have only created a glossary.  I don't really think that this has any value, but if we really want to keep content that is that low quality, I think it might as well be in a glossary, and if we really want to create new pages with defined and linked terms, we can still do that with the terms in a glossary page.  I'd be interested to see evidence that suggests single line stubs get turned into pages, my perception is that these have generally sat around unchanged for many years.  Ultimately having an entry in a glossary page does not prevent someone adding a more substantive page either.  Again, I think this comes back to the point discussed above - the purpose of Appropedia and whether we really want to fill it up with very low quality content. 09:20, 8 May 2013 (PDT)

 

 

 

 

For your browsing pleasure, I made [http://www.appropedia.org/index.php?title=User:RichardF/Sandbox&oldid=242917 a simple list of about 10,350 Main space pages] copied from [[Special:AllPages]]. Roughly 5,400 of these pages are articles, while the remaining 4,950 are redirect pages. I wonder how long it will take [[User:Joeturner|Joe]] to start culling the list! ;-) --[[User:RichardF|RichardF]] 13:08, 24 May 2013 (PDT)

 

 

 

* [[:File:AT autogyro.png]] - This appears to have the same stability and control issues I brought up a year ago.  Fortunately, it's less detailed than what was deleted last time, so it's unlikely that someone will actually try to make this.  "Part 103" aircraft such as this are not a good starting point for design in general, as the weight (254 pounds or less) and speed (24 knots max stall speed, 55 knots max level airspeed) restrictions involved often make for questionable designs. 

* [[User:KVDP/AT CAD Team/AT airship]] and related images - All three proposed lifting gasses are flammable, and one is toxic and reactive.  No provision is made for dealing with this.  Running an airship at positive buoyancy and using thrust to maintain altitude is risky, as an engine failure will result in an uncontrollable ascent (and potential envelope rupture followed by uncontrollable ''descent'').  No pressure relief valve is provided to deal with envelope heating or excess altitude.  Since this is a non-rigid airship, a means is needed to maintain envelope pressure; none is provided.  The inability to land the airship means that departing the airship is dangerous: with the specifications given, the airship will jump several hundred meters in the air when a passenger gets off.  The airship does not appear to have any means of pitch control: since the envelope acts as a huge low-efficiency wing, this makes altitude control difficulty.  The gondola suspension doesn't have any provision for preventing sway, which makes the control issues even worse.  Filling the envelope to only 85% capacity means you've got a floppy, unaerodynamic gas bag holding you up, and probably increases the risk of envelope rupture.  With only two or four engines of 1-2HP, the airship is grossly underpowered and will have trouble holding position in any but the lightest winds, much less flying against the wind.  There are probably other issues as well, especially with the "refueling station".

* [[Low cost water filtering]], [[Chujio la maji la gharama nafuu]] and [[:File:Homemade waterfilter.jpg]] - I don't know what purposes the sand and grass layers are supposed to serve (I don't have access to the book this is supposedly from), but I know the explanation of the charcoal layer is wrong (it acts as a chemical filter through [[wikipedia:adsorption|adsorption]]).  Because of this, I'm fairly sure the maintenance instructions are wrong, and there are probably some critical construction details that have been omitted.

* [[:File:Nitric oxide production.png]] - Nitric oxide is a toxic gas.  No mention is made of this.  Further, the diagram appears to confuse nitric oxide, nitrous oxide, and nitrogen peroxide (dinitrogen tetroxide) -- the reaction depicted produces nitric oxide.