Jump to content

Talk:Centre for Alternative Technology: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Cewbot (talk | contribs)
m Maintain {{WPBS}}: 5 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 5 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Wales}}, {{WikiProject Energy}}, {{WikiProject Environment}}, {{WikiProject Architecture}}, {{WikiProject Technology}}.
 
(16 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start| 1=
{{WikiProject Wales|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Energy|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Environment|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Architecture|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Technology }}
}}

==Untitled==
I don't think the AEES course is RIBA accredited.
I don't think the AEES course is RIBA accredited.


:It seems that the article was confusing two courses. I tried to fix it. --[[User:Heron|Heron]] 22:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
:It seems that the article was confusing two courses. I tried to fix it. --[[User:Heron|Heron]] 22:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)



== Animated Logo ==
== Animated Logo ==


Please an the animated logo be removed, it makes the article unreadable. {{unsigned|213.31.172.19}}
Please an the animated logo be removed, it makes the article unreadable. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:213.31.172.19|213.31.172.19]] ([[User talk:213.31.172.19|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/213.31.172.19|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
::I agree, though rather then removing the logo, perhaps someone could replace it with a static image. [[User:Pjb007|pjb007]] 23:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
::I agree, though rather then removing the logo, perhaps someone could replace it with a static image. [[User:Pjb007|pjb007]] 23:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
:In the mean time you can move your mouse over the image and press the Escape key (in Firefox and IE) and it will stop. --[[User:BMT|BMT]] 07:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
:In the mean time you can move your mouse over the image and press the Escape key (in Firefox and IE) and it will stop. --[[User:BMT|BMT]] 07:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

== Merge of [[Llwyngwern quarry]] ==

[[Llwyngwern quarry]] is a notable topic and an article is justified. However there is very little significant history to the quarry independently, other than as the home for CAT. Would we produce a better overall presentation for our readers by merging to a clear section under the History here? [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 15:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''', on the basis it would be blatant RECENTISM (and is almost a bizarre statement) to say the quarry doesn't have an independent history. It predated CAT by 140 years, after all. The quarry article seems to be well-developed and much too large to be merged. The article is even cited using non-CAT sources, amply showing that the quarry was notable decades before CAT existed. [[User:Sionk|Sionk]] ([[User talk:Sionk|talk]]) 17:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
:: ''Significant'' history. There are a great many such quarries. While most meet the letter of WP:Notable and so we ''could'' have an article on them, that's not the same as saying that we ''should'', when there's an obvious other related subject. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 18:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
*Obviously as creator of the [[Llwyngwern quarry]] article, I tend to think it should stay separate :-) As you say, it's a notable independent topic, and I think the quarry and CAT are quite separate. Llwyngwern is an interesting quarry: it's not on the main slate veins, so there's an interesting geological story; it started notably early, before 1828; and was one of the last slate quarries operating in the district. It is covered in a decent number of sources, and I know of at least two forthcoming books that will tell a lot more of its history. I'd propose keeping the articles separate, at least for now, to see how much more history emerges. I have a few more sources I want to use to expand the article, even before the new books are published. [[User:The Mirror Cracked|The Mirror Cracked]] ([[User talk:The Mirror Cracked|talk]]) 18:25, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
* OK, happy to withdraw this. I think it's better merged, mostly as a better CAT article, but there's certainly no reason we can't have them separate, it stands up for that. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 19:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
** Thanks, Andy. We can always consider it again in the future. [[User:The Mirror Cracked|The Mirror Cracked]] ([[User talk:The Mirror Cracked|talk]]) 22:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:01, 12 February 2024

Untitled

[edit]

I don't think the AEES course is RIBA accredited.

It seems that the article was confusing two courses. I tried to fix it. --Heron 22:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Please an the animated logo be removed, it makes the article unreadable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.31.172.19 (talkcontribs)

I agree, though rather then removing the logo, perhaps someone could replace it with a static image. pjb007 23:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the mean time you can move your mouse over the image and press the Escape key (in Firefox and IE) and it will stop. --BMT 07:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Llwyngwern quarry is a notable topic and an article is justified. However there is very little significant history to the quarry independently, other than as the home for CAT. Would we produce a better overall presentation for our readers by merging to a clear section under the History here? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, on the basis it would be blatant RECENTISM (and is almost a bizarre statement) to say the quarry doesn't have an independent history. It predated CAT by 140 years, after all. The quarry article seems to be well-developed and much too large to be merged. The article is even cited using non-CAT sources, amply showing that the quarry was notable decades before CAT existed. Sionk (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Significant history. There are a great many such quarries. While most meet the letter of WP:Notable and so we could have an article on them, that's not the same as saying that we should, when there's an obvious other related subject. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously as creator of the Llwyngwern quarry article, I tend to think it should stay separate :-) As you say, it's a notable independent topic, and I think the quarry and CAT are quite separate. Llwyngwern is an interesting quarry: it's not on the main slate veins, so there's an interesting geological story; it started notably early, before 1828; and was one of the last slate quarries operating in the district. It is covered in a decent number of sources, and I know of at least two forthcoming books that will tell a lot more of its history. I'd propose keeping the articles separate, at least for now, to see how much more history emerges. I have a few more sources I want to use to expand the article, even before the new books are published. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, happy to withdraw this. I think it's better merged, mostly as a better CAT article, but there's certainly no reason we can't have them separate, it stands up for that. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]