This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dry dung fuel article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Work needed for section "Dry dung versus moist dung"

This section needs work: "Dry dung versus moist dung". The sentences about the research work funded by BMGF do not fit here, the image of that prototype by RTI is not really relevant, no source is given (better information is actually on the BMGF page). Also the BMGF Reivent the Toilet Challenge has nothing to do with animal dung, only human excreta. I am still thinking about how best to re-arrange this (or moving this rather to the page of "reuse of excreta", but I wanted to flag this here in case someone is watching this page and has some good ideas. EvM-Susana (talk) 12:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some of the announced changes now. Moved some content to the page on incinerating toilets. EvM-Susana (talk) 10:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1891 reference

Do we really need multiple references to a book published in 1891? I suppose it provides some historical context of animal dung ignition in the 19 century, but clearly it has little to say about current practices. I am inclined to remove it altogether - or add it to a historical practices section. JMWt (talk) 07:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, seems totally crazy to cite a book from 1891 so many times! EvM-Susana (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit concerned this reference is still present and is still being used to describe current practice. These should be added to a historical section or removed. Not reintroduced into the text as if this is evidence of current practice. JMWt (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this has now been resolved, right?

Good ref tidy-up whoever did that (not sure why I thought I needed to keep listing the ref) but overall I think the ref can be lost altogether. I don't think it really adds much to this article. JMWt (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, have removed that sentence now.EvM-Susana (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fix up references

If someone has some time, can you please fix up the references so that they clearly state their year of publication? Most of them only state the date of retrieval. EvM-Susana (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dry animal dung fuel. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]