Talk:Straw-bale construction/Archive 1

Proposed move

I think this great article would be better over at wikibooks. I'll just go ahead and do it sometime after march 2006 unless there is clear objection. --DuLithgow 20:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see the point in using this article to start a wikibook, but I don't see any point in diminishing this article in any way. In any case I'd be glad to help out with a wikibook. Got any interesting ideas for a name? Christiaan 13:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the name should change, at least not the name of the url, it's too important for search engines that it be meaningful. I would also suggest that this article be trimmed down to describe the concept of straw bale construction, not the how and why - that's not encyclopedic, that's a how-to which belongs over at wikibooks or similar. But how about if I concentrate on moving it, and we'll take it from there. There are big discussions going on on some SB email lists about the best way to distribute information - so I want to move fast while the topis is alive. --DuLithgow 13:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, sounds good. Christiaan 13:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the information should stay here. Make a copy at wikibooks by all means, but there should also be an article here for people who want to read a quick intro to the subject (which is what this is, after all).

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 20:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm an idiot. I didn't realize the proposed move date was March 2006

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 20:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded, wikified

Ok, I've just added a bunch of material and reorganized a bit. There are tons of beautiful straw-bale houses out there... anyone got time to dig some up? Wordie 15:58, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Environmental considerations

I don't have the resource material handy to write about environmental considerations -- both external (resource consumption) and internal (offgassing? better or worse for people with environmental sensitivities than conventional construction?). Anyone up for the challenge?

Wordie 16:42, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Removal of Luddite link

I removed this link as it doesn't seem to bear any relation to straw bale construction. Christiaan 11.30, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

New Guy

Greetings everyone. I stumbled across this article and was compelled to become a member of Wikipedia, though I have been passively using the site for a while. I have been active in the SB community for the past few years, having worked on various stages of several projects in the US. I was one of a crew of four who built a strawbale residence from the muddy foundation trench, to the roof's ridge cap, to the finish coat of plaster. I am currently living in the UK working on a master's degree in Advanced Environmental and Energy Studies at the Centre for Alternative Technology.

I'd like to contribute to and improve this article, but I'm new to the Wiki process so bear with me while I take it slow.

I made a few edits to the external links and listed them in the edit summary. My reason for changing the text of The Straw Bale House to The Canelo Project (leaving the URL the same) is that the Steens' Book, while beautifully done and very influential, is also seriously outdated. The Canelo Project is still thriving and it seemed better to just call the link what it is. All of the Steens' books are available from that site.

I can recommend some other books but I am not familiar with the etiquette re: linking to Amazon or other commercial sites.

I moved The Last Straw Journal to the top, because for up-to-date information there is no better resource. I added Surfin' StrawBale just below it because it is the longest-lasting (and longest) list of links related to straw bale construction that exists.

I moved the two links to the Paso Robles project description together, since they're related. After browsing through both sites, it seems to me that they are detailing a long, ugly dispute between an owner and his former contractor. While the negative aspects and pitfalls of straw bale construction need to be addressed, are these links appropriate? There is really very little information about straw bale construction there.

The dimensions in the materials section are kinda screwy, especially the bulk bales. I'm going to go in and fix what I can; I know that bulk bales are not 3 inches square :)

Straw blocks are cool, and need to be mentioned, but they are not bales, nor is using straw blocks really straw bale construction. Is there a better place to put them?

That's all for now, cheers. Jason Perry 15:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We need to restore some detail to this article

The Wikibooks project is fantastic (though rather optimistic, don't you think?), but there's no reason why we can't have a fair amount of detail on this page. People still want an encyclopaedic summary of information without having to read an entire ebook. El T 18:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely. I read the article and thought - is that all they've got to say about it. It seemed lopsided with all those links at the bottom but very limited text. Can't remember what led me to the talk page, but I certainly didn't see the Wikibook link on the main page - my brain filters that kind of stuff out.--PeterR 11:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree! There is no reason why you should not have a complete article here. If the material overlaps with Wikibooks, so be it. Sunray 03:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External link proposal

Dear editors,

I write here at the suggestion of Dirk Beetstra

I would like to suggest that this page http:// naturalhomes.org/learning-straw.htm makes a valid contribution to straw bale construction since it enables people to find a straw bale construction course, information that is otherwise very difficult to find. This page, http:// naturalhomes.org/naturalhomesmap.htm in addition shows the location of straw bale homes around the world (using google maps) with links (once you click an icon) to the home builders own website.

Can I have your opinions as to the contribution these two links could make?

Regards, Oliver naturalhomes 01:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the guidelines for links and suggest for the moment that this DMOZ link replace all the links in this article. http://dmoz.org/Business/Construction_and_Maintenance/Building_Types/Sustainable_Architecture/Straw_Bale_Construction/ However, I believe that links that support or reflect the resurgence of natural building are entirely in keeping with the article. naturalhomes 02:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree with the comments Oliver makes, above. However, I must confess to being unimpressed by the map. I don't know how it is for the British Isles and Europe, but it is woefully inadequate for North America (and almost laughable for Canada). Sunray 06:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support Sunray. I am convinced that a link to the straw bale construction course page (http:// naturalhomes.org/learning-straw.htm) is a valuable contribution, not least because it links to most, if not all, of the major learning providers. Similarly a link to the map (which now contains more straw bale buildings) is a central point for people to see the result of the resurgence in this building technique. These resources collectively demonstrate the strength of the construction method around the world and more easily enable prospective self-builders to use the method. So how is this progressed? naturalhomes 01:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now had the chance to look over the [http:// naturalhomes.org/learning-straw.htm naturalhomes.org] link in detail and do not see any justification for calling it "spam." I would like to see Dirk Beetstra's rationale for this. It is not a commercial link and does not appear to be selling anything. On the other hand, it does provide a wealth of good information about natural building. As I suggested above, it tends to be UK-centric, however, that is not necessarily a bad thing, since so many of the natural building links are US-focussed. I am interested in Dirk's rationale, but as of now, can see no reason for not having this as an external link. I will take a look at the other links to see if they are likewise suitable for the article. Sunray 07:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question raised by Dirk regarding inclusion of the naturalhomes.org link was discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam and resolved. The point was made that users should not add links for organizations they own or control. If they do, it may be seen as advertising. However, in the case of the naturalhomes link, it is not selling a product and it does provide valuable information and resources on straw-bale, that supplements the article (a criterion of WP:EL. I (a neutral party) have therefore added the links (see comment below). Sunray 17:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, Spamming is about promoting your own site or a site you love, not always about commercial sites nor has to be "selling something". Links to commercial sites are often appropriate. Links to sites for the purpose of using Wikipedia to promote a site are not. Specific policy on the conflict of interest issue is Advertising and conflicts of interest. Unfortunatly, the link s not appropriate as it promotes Building Courses and Workshops, many of which require registration and is not a resource about the subject. Again it does not help to expand the article, rather promotes Building Courses and Workshops. Remember this is an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not a directory to Building Courses and Workshops, or an advertisement service for conducting business. Hope that helps clears up the policy issues.--Hu12 03:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hu12: I cannot disagree with most of what you have said, above. However, Naturalhomes has ceased promoting this site. As outlined below, I added the link after a review of the links for this article. I think our difference is in your second use of the word "promotes," above. It has to do with the use of that term to describe the site. As someone who has subject-matter expertise in Natural building, I think that the term "provides resources" is more apt. The site is a compendium of resources for natural builders. I am also a long-time editor of Wikipedia and not known to be overly permissive on external links (quite the reverse). If I put myself in the place of a reader who wants to know more about straw-bale construction, the naturalhomes site is a good resource. I think that this link should be in the article. I will restore that link and call for other editors to join this discussion. Sunray 00:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to add that I am concerned that you would go back on what you had said and (I thought) we had previously agreed to on the WikiProjectSpam talk page, to wit:

However, since the decision is now being discussed on the articles talk page, if it is found to be relevant, informative and should otherwise be included, a neutral and independent Wikipedia editor (other than Naturalhomes may add it...

I am a neutral and independent editor. I did review the link and I did find it to be appropriate, and so added it. Sunray 06:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Groundrules for External links

I've pruned the list, added a commented-out note with some groundrules, and removed the "clean-up" tag. In accordance with the discussion above, I have added the naturalhomes link and map and also the dmoz link. These are good general resources, IMO. I removed several links that didn't seem to meet WP:EL. The one I wasn't sure about was the California Straw Building Association link. I don't find it very content-rich and the main event listed is now in the past. It does give details on a grant (if you are in California), but other than that it has little that isn't provided by other links. Comments? Sunray 17:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The changes you made seem well considered. The link to the resources on naturalhomes.org have been removed again. I would like to re-open the debate among those people who know something about the subject and are able to judge the quality and contribution of external resources. naturalhomes 00:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of naturalhomes site as a link

Hu12 has removed the following entry under External links:

Naturalhomes.org [http:// naturalhomes.org/learning-straw.htm Straw] Resources on straw-bale, including a [http:// naturalhomes.org/naturalhomesmap.htm map] of locations worldwide

Hu12's rationale for excluding this link, the following:

... Specific policy on the conflict of interest issue is Advertising and conflicts of interest. Unfortunatly, the link s not appropriate as it promotes Building Courses and Workshops, many of which require registration and is not a resource about the subject. Again it does not help to expand the article, rather promotes Building Courses and Workshops. Remember this is an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not a directory to Building Courses and Workshops, or an advertisement service for conducting business."

For clarity, here is the text of the section that Hu12 refers to above:

Due to the rising profile of Wikipedia and the amount of extra traffic it can bring a site, there is a great temptation to use Wikipedia to advertise or promote sites. This includes both commercial and non-commercial sites. You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it.

I have no particular interest in the site. The question to be addressed, then, is whether or not the site is a good resource for encyclopedia readers. Sunray 16:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link initialy was added with a conflict of interest by User:Naturalhomes, and was removed per policy. The External links policy On conflict of interest can be found @ Advertising and conflicts of interest. The issue now is does this link meet Wikipedia policy guidelines for inclusion.--Hu12 17:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a fair amount of discussion about this link, above. In short, I restored the link to the article because it provides a general resource for natural building and straw-bale construction. The resources it provides include courses, links, books and a map of locations of straw-bale homes. I believe it should remain in the article. Sunray 00:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me we are experiencing a bit of piling on by folks from the WikiProjectSpam, all of whom seem to have the same opinion. Anyone with natural building knowledge or expertise care to share their perspective? Sunray 23:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am becomming concerned about Sunray's persistant refactoring and moving of comments during this active discussion. Please refrain from adding nonsense such as '&ot to topic headders such as this edit, and unnecessary renaming such as this.Talk pages comments are meant to be a record of a discussion; moving or editing comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Comments were purposly replied to in specific locations in response to questions/comments do not remove other peoples comments, such as this edit and this edit as it can significantly can change their meaning. --Hu12 02:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have simply refactored as per guidelines. The request in the "Poll" section is: "If you wish to discuss this matter, please comment in the appropriate section above and then vote below." Several people (including myself) failed to abide by this. Lengthy discussion makes it difficult for people to vote. so I refactored. You have continually reverted my doing that. I have no idea why. I will assume that you are not trying to interfere with the polling process. So why not just settle down and let people vote? BTW the "&ot" was added by the machine. Sorry about that. Now, please, just relax and let's get on with this. Sunray 02:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines states In the past it was standard practice to refactor talk pages, although this practice has fallen into disuse it has no policy guidelines and in this situation is uneeded. Refactoring is a form of editing whose goal is to 'improve readability while preserving meaning, Both of which your edits do not achieve. The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context. Commenting is widely accepted among editors as common practice ( see WP:RFA, WP:AFD, ect.) as it centralizes discusion. Your are in violation of WP:3RR and avise you to cease these edits per WP:POINT. this behavior has been reported on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#.22Suspect.22_edits_on_Talk:Straw-bale_construction. On a side note, in order to interfere with the polling process one would need make changes to the "context" of the discussion by means of edits such as refactoring and moving comments away from the debate. I'll assume good faith that your edits were not intended for that purpose. --Hu12 02:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection

I've full protected this talk page because of edit warring. Hu12, although you are still able to edit this page, I ask you to refrain from doing so until protection expires. Please take this to dispute resolution. Durova^Charge! 15:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poll

Please indicate below whether you support or oppose retaining [http:// naturalhomes.org/learning-straw.htm this link]. If you wish to discuss this matter, please comment in the "Discussion" section below. This poll will close at midnight on August 7, 2007. Sunray 15:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Valuable resource. Sunray 00:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe this is a valuable resource, then please use it as a reference. Please read the external links guideline, our policy about what wikipedia is not, reliable sources guideline, and other relevant policies and guidelines. I do not believe this link should be included, it mainly promotes; even if it does not sell a product, User:Naturalhomes certainly had an interest in attracting people to his page. For what it matters, the link was added under conflict of interest, therefore the link was removed, and the link should only be included after consensus is reached on the talkpage. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Promotes Building Courses and Workshops, many of which require registration and is not a resource about the subject, nor does not help to expand the article. Fails WP:EL and WP:RS. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, WP:NOT an advertisement or referral service for Building Courses and Workshops.--Hu12 11:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The "learning" link teaches you nothing but where you can spend your money on learning about straw bale building. The "map" while potentially interesting does not contain encyclopedic content - just links to other websites which may or may not have more information. It seems like a good website for people in the straw bale building community - but that does not necessarily make it a good link for Wikipedia. There is simply not enough encyclopedic information on either of these pages to make it worth linking. The [http:// naturalhomes.org/house.htm "Homes" link] on the website, which features articles about homes built with natural materials around the world, might be more appropriately included on a different page, but not on the straw-bale construction article. Nposs 13:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - its pretty blatant promotion, and other than that is not a valuable resource. JoeSmack ^Talk 16:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The issue of promotion is addressed above. The issue is whether this link is a useful resource for readers. Sunray 16:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe the issue at hand now is whether this link meets Wikipedia policy guidelines for inclusion. If readers were looking for Building Courses and Workshops, they would most likely search google not Wikipedia. There is no encyclopedic reason for its inclusion other than to promote the site naturalhomes.org and its advertisers soliciting Building Courses and Workshops. --Hu12 17:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in case it wasn't clear, I do not think that this link meets guidelines for inclusion as per WP:EL. JoeSmack ^Talk 21:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be able to tell us which aspect of WP:EL it doesn't meet? Sunray 22:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Link contains a wide variety of extra information. There's too much stuff to be included in an encyclopedia entry. Some, but not all (indeed, not most) of the info provided is for commercial course and books, but there is also information about free books, and free courses. Note that the site does not appear to sell anything. Thus books have ISBN details, but there's no link to a "buy me", even a "buy me from Amazon". This link is a useful resource for people who want further information about straw-bale building. Dan Beale 21:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: on the basis of Wikipedia is not a directory. I generally remove links that promote classes, seminars and academic courses. This page is contstantly changing, which can be problematic. This and some of other unencyclopedic or promotional links currently listed — strawbuilding.org, greenhomebuilding.com, earthandstraw.com — are better suited for the dmoz directory. Burlywood 15:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

This poll is being re-started after some technical difficulties. Thus far, we have had several comments from folks from WikiProjectSpam. Their comments are noteworthy. It would also be interesting to see what some editors with knowledge of, or expertise in, Natural building think of this link. Please comment here and vote above. Sunray 15:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poll result: No naturalhomes link

Bad Link

The link to wikibooks doesn't work and I don't know how to fix it. Can anyone help? allthingsgreen 01:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]