Talk:Centre for Alternative Technology

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Wales Mid‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Energy

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Architecture Mid‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

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]

Animated Logo

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

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]

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? 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]
- Thanks, Andy. We can always consider it again in the future. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]