Talk:Sustainability/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

Definition

I've posted a rewrite of the definition here Talk:Sustainability/Definition. Aim is to be short and accessible - hence lots of good content is missing from it. I ended up including the Brundtland definition in it - it just fitted - if it stays then by implication it wouldn't be in the lead.

I propose that the best place for the missing content is Sustainability measurement (since defining something is a necessary prerequisite to measuring it). Anyway, comments, changes, whatever either here or on that discussion page.--Travelplanner (talk) 07:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, here's version 2

Now here's Version 3 Granitethighs 20:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Reads like original research... Version 3 above. Same problem of falsely defining sustainability to sustainable growth or development. That is a different subject or subheading of this article subject.

However, since the 1980s we have come to use the word more in the sense of human sustainability on planet Earth and this has resulted in the most widely quoted definition of sustainability and sustainable development, that of the Brundtland Commission of the United Nations: “sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” to which is generally added the observation that this will require the reconciliation of environmental, social and economic demands - the "three pillars" of sustainability. The UN definition is not universally accepted and has undergone various interpretations....etc. end quote from mock up.

The above is also redefining the U.N. definition of sustainable development/growth to include an o.r. opinion of that being also a definition for sustainability - Also saying that the U.N. definition is not universally accepted? Phrasing seems not good there as to tone of presentation. skip sievert (talk) 00:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Skip, try googling Sustainability definition and look at the definitions given. For better or worse it is, by-and-large the Brundtland definition of sustainable development. This may not seem appropriate in your head but that is how the world is dealing with it and that is what an encyclopaedia reports: not what it thinks "ought" to be there, which is p.o.v. IMO case closed (as it has been for a long time) - we could provide oodles of citations if necessary. Also - the article is reporting - it is not saying the Brundtland defn is the correct and only definition - notice that other defns are given and many more implied. Wording can be tweaked re tone if others think it necessary. Hadn't you volunteered to stay away for a while? Granitethighs 00:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

From the article page yes. The above is also redefining the U.N. definition of sustainable development/growth, to include an o.r. opinion, of that being also a definition for sustainability, which it is not. Here is a definition from the first page of Google search of Sustainability definition... which works just fine. No political pov involved. skip sievert (talk) 02:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This is what I got first when I searched for definitions of sustainability on the web here however, there seem to be hundreds of definitions on the web that we could possibly cite - or put in the "See Also" section here Skip, how do you justify "your" choice of definition here over the tens of others that are available? This is just your p.o.v. (i.e. one you prefer) which is not how an encyclopaedia is constructed - you cannot "tell" people how to define sustainability with a selection of your own choice. In the article the Brundtland definition is used as just one of several quoted in this section; it is there because it is the most commonly quoted of all the many definitions. You do not like the Brundtland definition because you perceive the UN as a highly politically charged organisation which, even if true, is beside the point.Granitethighs 06:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

An observation: Skip, a useful phrase I learned once was “the meaning of a word is its use”. Dictionaries must inevitably “research” the meanings they give words, they must always be checking “common usage”. Sustainability is a good example of changing usage. Old usages of “sustain” are gradually falling away and we have a new one which is the one we are dealing with. You (and I) may not like it, but the kind of new definitions of sustainability now appearing in Dictionaries, have emanated from places like the UN – or other organizations that you might consider as “politically motivated”. From an encyclopaedia point of view, where they come from is unimportant. The question is more “are the definitions themselves politically biased”? (Sorry, broke the rules,I’ll keep comments very brief in future but this is a significant matter) Granitethighs 23:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Basic point. You are making a bridge of defining sustainability to a definition for sustainable development in your language phrasing, and saying that sustainability and sustainable development follow the same definition. They do not. This seems plain.

Version 3 above? Same problem of falsely defining sustainability to sustainable growth or development. That is a different subject or subheading of this article subject.

Mock up "However, since the 1980s we have come to use the word more in the sense of human sustainability on planet Earth and this has resulted in the most widely quoted definition of sustainability and sustainable development,<--(original research) that of the Brundtland Commission of the United Nations: “sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” to which is generally added the observation that this will require the reconciliation of environmental, social and economic demands - the "three pillars" of sustainability. The UN definition is not universally accepted and has undergone various interpretations....etc.- end quote from mock up. skip sievert (talk) 02:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• That it is the most widely quoted definition is a fact that can be checked by anyone with access to a computer or a library.
• Yes the definition states "sustainable development is ..." so well observed, it is a definition of sustainable development. This definition is also (for better or worse) frequently applied to sustainability (fact). That can be checked too, I can provide numerous citations. The article does NOT say that conflating the two is a good thing OR that this is the ONLY way sustainability is defined - instead it immediately points out that it is contentious. You are misreading what has been written as a "hard" definition of sustainability, rather than (as intended) simply one of the many ways that the literature deals with the definition of sustainability. Have a nice day - perhaps a walk in the sunshine, no? its great out there. Granitethighs 03:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

As GT says, there are plenty of sources that say that the Brundtland definition is the most common. [1], [2], [3], [4]

Will you be editing here again Skip? If so, would you please sign indicating your acceptance of the groundrules here? All the other regular page editors have signed, except you and Nick. Sunray (talk) 08:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do not change the subject here. I do not like your editing team approach from past experience with it. It is too unidirectional as to pov and interests. I follow Wikipedia guidelines and policy...for direction, and this argument does not work as to picking a political pov to another definition. Ground rules made up outside of Wikipedia policy? I don't think so. I hope that is clear and Special pleading a case for wrongly defining a word is not suggested. It is original research to redefine a word to a political pov of a different concept... that being sustainable growth/development. Please do not repeat past over sourcing issues to political pov in the article. skip sievert (talk) 14:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This brings up an interesting problem. If most of the people working on a page agree to a framework for communication so as to avoid disruptions, and one person does not sign and continues to disrupt the work, what can the majority do to enforce the agreement? Is a discussion guideline enforceable on an editor that was not not part of the original agreement? LK (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, the above is clearly adressing the editor not the content, therefore by our rules, it should be removed. Is everyone alright with that? LK (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think your(LK) and Sunrays comments should be deleted, including skips. They are not on content. Sunray could have posted that comment on skips talk page and left the discussion elsewhere. You both have lead this discussion on the contributor. I suggest you change it now. It doesn't seem right how you guys are commenting pressuring things that have nothing to do with the article. Lets just forget this and start a new section again and hope it stays on content. AdenR (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

AdenR: How do Lawrence's comments, or mine, constitute either a personal attack on or personal opinion of another editor? Sunray (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Never said it was a personal attack. I'm just saying this whole conversation is stupid and irrelevant to content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdenR (talk • contribs) 22:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

At times, maintaining order on this page will be the content. As long as the remarks are not personal, they would seem to me to be in-bounds. However, we should probably agree to shift such discussion to another venue as soon as possible. Sunray (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I have now signed, apologies for the lateness. Nick carson (talk) 05:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Now back to the task in hand. The Definition section is looking pretty good now, certainly I like it more than the version on the main page and can't see any easy ways to improve it.

Skip the statement that the Brundtland definition is the most widely used definition of sustainability has been amply verified so can be included. It is indeed strange that the most widely used definition of sustainability is a definition of sustainable development. Strange but true and handled very well in GT's text. Also, I recall than in wanting the Brundtland definition out of the lead you suggested it belonged in the definition section, now it's in the definition section you say you don't want it there either...???--Travelplanner (talk) 09:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

No you have that wrong as to context, but that is another subject. You can not make up your own version of a definition to a word by chopping an original quote that was not connected to the word itself, as to definition. (Personal comment removed per agreement on this talk page) skip sievert (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

TPs point was that the wording she had used was different from the original, but it is nevertheless the more frequently used. If that is correct then it is a fact and nothing to do with original research or "framing" anything. Granitethighs 21:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

To answer my own question - reliable published sources that could be quoted in support of the statement that the most commonly used definition of sustainability is from the Brundtland report tend to include the entire sentence. However a google search for "meeting the needs of the present without" will turn up around 9 shortened versions "Meeting the needs" or "Sustainability is meeting the needs" for every one that includes the whole quote "Sustainable development is development that meets..." So - the Brundtland definition is in practice shortened more often than not, but it is more encyclopedic to quote the whole sentence as GT has done.

Perhaps because the task was so boring, I found this reliable source kind of funny... --Travelplanner (talk) 07:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Not funny. And the point is being missed here. It is not a source to a definition of sustainability. Here is a definition devoid of conflict of interest and maintains neutral pov actual definition, as phased above it is particularly bad because even the way it was framed misrepresents the quote... hence original research. - skip sievert (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Skip there is no such thing as the "actual" definition of sustainability ... clearly you have your preference ... but that is simply and obviously your p.o.v. and that is not the way an encyclopaedia account is written.Granitethighs 21:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The Bruntland definition seems to better fit the topic as discussed in the article. Generally speaking I would prefer a more complete definition. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks VoR - that seems the safest route. You hint at a slight problem we have been aware of for a long time ("topic as discussed in the article"). Though there are so many nuances of meaning of sustainability we are clearly heading down one particular path of meaning. We do not actually declare that path precisely in the article. However, it should be obvious and may not be necessary anyway. Related to this is that - regardless of all the definition issues - the fact is we do not confront the distinction sustainability/sustainable development head-on (i.e. in what way do the two articles differ?). I think they do differ and again - it may not be necessary for a statement but ... grateful for any suggestions or thoughts about this. Granitethighs 23:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the Brundtland definition from the Lead as we now have it in the Definition section. I have also added the MEA as a second source of scientific evidence for humans living unsustainably (sorry Skip but IMO this is the best reference - it is a refereed synthesis by a huge number of world-renowned scientists, not a statement of UN policy or position). Neither of these edits seem controversial to me but yell if you think they are. Now, can we assume if there is no more comment/editing soon, that Version 3 has been accepted ... and put it up? The word count for Version 3 has gone up - can we excise anything without too much loss? Granitethighs 05:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Definition rewrites

Version 3 is looking good. Final comments/suggested changes anyone? Sunray (talk) 05:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Its not good. Its a political pov and a false definition of the word... and this has resulted in the most widely quoted definition of sustainability and sustainable development, that of the Brundtland Commission of the United Nations: “sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. end quote from mock up.

This is patently false. It is a misrepresentation of the definition of Sustainable development to that of sustainability. skip sievert (talk) 05:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You haven't raised anything new here. I provided you several reliable sources to support that statement. GT and TP have discussed it with you thoroughly and have responded to each of your concerns. According to the groundrules, unless you raise something new, your comments may be ignored. Sunray (talk) 05:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

In general I agree with version 3, and am happy for it to go online as it stands. A couple of minor points. I agree with you, GT, that the meaning is the use, and that an encyclopaedic article should not be tied to dictionary definitions. However, I don't think it would hurt in the definition section to trace the development of the use of the term a little more fully from its etymology through to its current usage, and perhaps Skip would be happier with that. The current usage seems very much tied to the tensions between the "three pillars" of sustainability – environment, social, economic. I think the emergence of these three pillars needs some clarification. The article sources the origin of the term "three pillars" to the 2005 UN World Summit, but I can't find any mention of the term there. According to this source, the term originated with the EU at the Treaty of Amsterdam of 1997. But the EU seems to use the term in rather different ways as well. I am also wondering if the "three pillars" should be linked to the triple bottom line. --Geronimo20 (talk) 11:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

As an aside Skip, I suspect that by "sustainability" you have in your mind something that is static, and does not change over time. Suppose that a given environment could, over time and without degrading, produce one of three outcomes: more economic output, or less, or the same. Each of these outcomes could be regarded as sustainable, providing there were no negative social impacts. The first outcome could be regarded as a development, the second as a decline, and the third as maintaining the status quo. I suspect that you have in your mind the third outcome as being what you mean by "sustainability", to sustain without change. But I invite you to consider that the first and second outcomes are equally "sustainable". "Sustainable development" is merely a special case of sustainability. There is no conflict in accepting the Brundtland definition as a definition of sustainability. In fact, if by "development", you were to understand that things could increase, decrease, or remain the same, then it would become a very good general definition of sustainability.. --Geronimo20 (talk) 12:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. It is sourced from a political pov of mainstream economic growth concepts and not ecological economics, which gets as close to real sustainability issues as is possible within mainstream currently with Bioeconomics... Biophysical economics... or Systems ecology, and Industrial ecology connected with energetics. Sourcing to an antique concept from the U.N. is a mistake. Promoting a false idea of sustainable growth as in the form of neo classical economics is a sadly mistaken view, and that view is responsible for the current resource destruction, and shows no evidence of changing their direction... so, perpetuating that myth is not good as it is political disinformation connected to that source. Read this for more information about Biophysical economics from a recent N.Y.Times article Times article, and lets not confuse things to political definitions for another topic. skip sievert (talk) 16:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you are making good points Skip. Information from what you have mentioned can provide more structure and presentation to sustainability. I do see how a Quote that seems very weak having so much weight in this article is strange. AdenR (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I think version 3 is not good enough to go online. The definition section is just an analysis of mainstream thought on sustainability, and that is questionable. There is too much mention of sustainable development as well. The two articles also overlap by a significant amount. I think having a link above in the lead that says for further info or also see Sustainable development can help with this.

The mention of the BC quote is frivolous. It is of sustainable development. An imaginary link to sustainability poses a problem. I have read the "proof" you guys put to suggest otherwise. It doesn't win me over. Sustainability has a meaning that is very understandable. We don't need three paragraphs and a bunch of quotes to define it. That is why I don't understand why so much credit is going towards the quote. A definition section should read like this....

The word sustainability is derived from the Latin sustinere (tenere, to hold; sus, up) meaning "To hold up". Definitions of sustainability may be expressed as statements of fact, intent, or value with sustainability treated as either a "journey" or "destination".[2] Where we are now, where we need to be going, and how we are to get there are all open to interpretation[3] and will depend on the particular context under consideration.[4] What can be described as sustainable will depend on the scale of space and time that is appropriate to the item under consideration. For example, if time criteria have not been met, then assertions of sustainability are more like predictions than definitions.[5] This difficult mix has been described as a "dialogue of values that defies consensual definition".[6] Sustainability has been regarded as both an important but unfocused concept like "liberty" or "justice".

I think this is how the definition should be written, this is a VERY rough draft but I think you get the point....and maybe even a good example of what is to be met to give it some good context. All the other stuff should be used eslwhere or totally removed or replaced with something better. AdenR (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not like the last sentence at all...Sustainability has been regarded as both an important but unfocused concept like "liberty" or "justice".... that is a ridiculous statement. It sounds like blatant opinion as in original research or bloglike forumspeak, and can not be taken as serious content for and article like this. skip sievert (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• My mistake. I agree with that assessment. Also can you cross out that part. I seem to be having problems doing that. I put the s/ things around the sentence but it crossed everything else too. AdenR (talk) 17:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

TP redrafted the Definition section. She and GT have edited it extensively on the subpage. Initial comments by Voice of reason and AdenR on the subpage were positive (though Aden now seems to have changed his opinion). Geronimo and I have indicated our agreement with Version 3. That makes five editors who have commented in favour of the revised version; Skip and AdenR are opposed. Do any other editors wish to comment? Sunray (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I cannot support the above redraft by Aden; each sentence in it is copied from work done by GT or myself but there is no logic to how the sentences are put together. And then Skip's suggestion to take a referenced quote from a reliable source and suggest its deletion because "I do not like it"... other editors are under no obligation to take this sort of thing seriously. Provide a reason, cite a source, your POV is irrelevant.

AdenR is completely right, Version 3 is "an analysis of mainstream thought on sustainability". That's the point - this is an encyclopedia. Anything other than an analysis of mainstream thought is either an analysis of non-mainstream thought (which could belong in a subarticle) or a poorly analysed POV (which doesn't deserve to be on Wikipedia at all.

I can find nothing of substance in Skip's or Aden's comments to justify changes to Version 3. If there are no further positive suggestions then it needs to go up.--Travelplanner (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

OK I will put it up. Geronimo has raised the point of changing etymology requiring explanation. I agree, but word number is critical now - perhaps that can be done in a later sub-article. I will try to address his other points about correct citation. I added Skips reference to the "scientific evidence" section before realising that it was a petition by eminent scientists - impressive though this is it is not scientific evidence, only evidence of scientific opinion - so I removed it. IMO this is a difficult section and bits are bound to annoy - but as TP points out we are not setting out to redirect the the thinking of the environmental movement but to describe as best we can the current situation. Granitethighs 21:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Good work folks. Nick carson (talk) 01:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the rewrite. Version 3 looks good and is better than the old text. Nice work guys. LK (talk) 05:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Next steps

We are still heading for GA and FA and I suppose the length of 98 kb is a major issue (although FA status has been given to articles about 110 kb long - I think Virus was a long one like that). I will work on the "Environmental dimension" section that has been flagged for reduction - any help gratefully received. What else do we need to do? Granitethighs 21:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The Oceans subsection includes Coastal management as further information. Coastal management is about protecting coastal land from the ocean and is not about the ocean itself. I think Marine pollution should be listed instead. --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and we need to focus on sustainability rather than problems, IMO. This can be achieved by introducing the problem and then describing what is being done, or has to be done, about it. Sunray (talk) 01:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Sustainability is an even more encompassing subject matter than Virus so I think we would be more than warranted in stepping over 110kb, but probably not over 120kb. We're hoving around 100kb right now which I think is quite acceptable. Perhaps we could also look at improving some of the supporting articles like History of sustainability as I think that's mentioned in GA & FA criteria. I totally agree that Marine Pollution be included in priority to coastal management, but as Sunray explained, we should keep things tight and ensure that we relate directly to sustainability and where it fits in the overall context, the article on Marine pollution will cover that topic in greater depth. Nick carson (talk) 01:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Of the past month's featured articles, four are over 100 kb (Byzantine Navy. Janet Jackson, Plymouth Colony and Virus). Most are in the range of 40 - 70 kb. So, while shorter is generally the norm, there can be exceptions. I think we have to look critically at our article and determine whether it needs to be this long. If it does, fine. In response to previous observations that we should shorten the article, we have determined that a few sections could be cut back. We have done that to the History and Definition sections. We have also agreed to work on shortening the Environmental dimension, and particularly the Environmental management section. That is in progress now. After that, we should be in shape for a GAN. I also like Nick's suggestion that we improve the sub articles. Sunray (talk) 20:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

An/I

There is a thread at An/I which comments on editing this article. --Geronimo20 (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The above is a solicitation. That is called canvassing. This follows a recurring problem. skip sievert (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

(Personal comment removed per agreement on this talk page) So far TP, GT, and Nick don't agree with my assessment...I am not surprised since you guys wrote the damn thing. Give it another look and please be more objective in doing so. I would rather see third party opinions than have you guys automatically dismiss an honest critique. The section is still badly written and introduces some problems in the article. No, I am not going to give specifics right now GT. I'll do so latter on when more neutral editors come here.

Now, about Geronimo's (Personal comment removed per agreement on this talk page) It is COMPLETELY off topic.AdenR (talk) 02:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you and Skipsievert brothers by any chance? Or perhaps friends in real life? LK (talk) 05:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you have some personal Vendetta against skip that you have to bring up stupid questions like that? I have just been reverted for blocking your question. I wonder why? Are you related to Vulcan? Or perhaps friends in real life? This page Is absolutely not about Sustainability. It is about the contributors(sarcasm for those who cant understand it). So Please would someone tell me why I'm being reverted to Blocking His dumb question. There seems to be double standards here. AdenR (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Aden no, I don't agree with your assessment, vague criticisms are completely unhelpful and your suggested alternative section (in bold above) is just a mashup of sentences written by GT or myself, strung together without regard for their meaning. There are a lot of editors on this page with a range of opinions, but if the only way to be "neutral" is to agree with you/Skip then you may be waiting some time before a "neutral" editor comes along...--Travelplanner (talk) 07:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

you are not a third party opinion TPAdenR (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

So you are admitting that you are not a neutral editor? I agree. Same with the team...Eh no deleting my comment because after all this discussion is not about Sustainability.AdenR (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Please think about what I've said before replying. I said that if the only way to be neutral is to agree with you/Skip then I'm not neutral. Nobody has a neutral point of view - the act looking at something creates a point of view. The only way to achieve neutrality is to consider multiple points of view, which is precicely what you are here refusing to do.--Travelplanner (talk) 23:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I was joking. Being sarcastic. In order to make a point. Still I'd rather have a third opinion. This is a dispute on content, right? I did consider your viewpoints or suggestions...I said it did not win me over in the past. Also, I can accuse you of the same thing as not considering others point of view. You guys immediately disapproved of my suggestion and put up your edits. That doesn't seem very constructive.AdenR (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

A "third" opinion? (Personal comment removed per agreement on this talk page) everyone else no matter how many of us there are who disagree with you makes two? --Travelplanner (talk) 02:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I meant third party or even a fourth party opinion if that is what you are asking about. (Personal comment removed per agreement on this talk page) I'm merely asking for others opinion who isn't involved and can look at things objectively. There are problems with this article and on the talk page. To me, my suggestion seems very neutral. A definition section should not be Three paragraphs long and have 2-3 quotes.

Also, I would like to add that I suggested to move all the other material(from the definition section) somewhere else in the article or delete it if my suggestion was to be taken. I think that is good as well. maybe renaming Usage or mainstream thought. Because GT, TP, and Sunray have been saying Sustainability should be about the mainstream usage, right?AdenR (talk) 12:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Now that I look at it again, the definition section does seem overly long. It can stand to be trimmed, keeping the logic of what is there now. I suggest we put that on the list of things to do, and move on to more pressing issues. LK (talk) 12:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom

In a recent request for arbitration affecting the editing of this page, an arbitrator expressed the opinion that the "the community of economics article editors and the community of administrators, ask themselves why it took this long for this matter to be dealt with?". I think we may assume he also meant to include the sustainability editors here as well. Although no discussion has yet been set up as a direct result of this opinion, there is currently a general discussion along the same lines where editors to this page might like to comment. --Geronimo20 (talk) 05:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Article length

There have been concerns that the article, at about 100kB, is too long. The restriction mentioned in WP:SIZE is 60kB of readable prose, not the byte count you see when you open the page for editing. The current version of the article has 49,591 kB (7363 words) of readable prose, according to the prosesize tool. This is comfortably within the guideline. The rest of the text (citations, captions, headings, invisible comments etc) does not count. --Geronimo20 (talk) 01:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point, and one that justifies removal of the tag, IMO. I think that the main consideration from here on out for the Good Article Nomination and the eventual FA nom, should be the readability of the article. Peer reviewers have mentioned that it may not yet meet FA criterion 1a). I don't disagree with this. When GT condensed the History section and created a sub-article, it improved the overall readability, IMO. Likewise with TP's edit of the Definition section. I am currently looking at the Environmental dimension. I find it confusing (for e.g., there are currently two subsections on Water) and yet not really comprehensive. I think it can be both condensed and improved. However, I think that you have now given the closing argument on article length. Sunray (talk) 21:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. A rewrite of the more 'bitsy' sections with simpler expression will be sufficient to keep length acceptable. Any useful but unpalatable or too lengthy factual information that has to be omitted could be farmed out to key sub-articles. Granitethighs 22:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[Initial "to do" list, which had appeared here in the sequence of discussions on the talk page has been moved back to the talk page as work / discussion continues] Sunray (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Removing 1RR

This is simply a procedural matter. I would like to propose removing 1RR restriction from User:Sunray, as the instigator of the edit war has been indefinitely banned from Wikipedia and it originally intended "for the time being" (which unfortunately lasted well over half a year because the instigator was gaming the system). Any objections? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No objections from me - go ahead - and thanks for keeping an eye on this. Granitethighs 23:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No objection. I support the removal. Nick carson (talk) 02:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Support removal of 1RR. LK (talk) 07:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

So that's 4 supports in 4 or 5 days. Nick carson (talk) 05:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Make that 5 supports and sorry for the long silence. --Travelplanner (talk) 08:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks folks. I like 1RR, (or, at least, WP:BRD) generally, though occasionally 2Rs are needed. :) Sunray (talk) 08:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like we got a clear consensus. The 1RR restriction on Sunray is now lifted. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)