Talk:Cool Globes: Hot Ideas for a Cooler Planet

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pictures of the Globes on Commons[edit]

The US do not recognize freedom of panorama for sculptures, do Commons cannot host pictures of the globes. If you wish to illustrate the article, please upload your pictures here on en: with a Fair Use rationale. Your pictures can be temporarily undeleted on Commons to allow the transfer. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

I deleted Category:Energy conservation and Category:Environmentalism for the following reasons:

-- Alan Liefting 01:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the category were "Environmentalism in the United States" then it might be a good fit, but the theme of the project is ways to combat global warming, and in no way focusses on the "environment of the United States". Thus that categorization seems misleading and incorrect. If you wish to change the name of the category, then I would reconsider. This is a major public art project in a major world city, the largest one in Chicago since 1999, with the stated goal of fighting global warming, worldwide. Thus it seems appropriate to categorize it so that people exploring the category "Environmentalism," which has only 71 pages, would see it. That category currently contains two articles about a neologism someone coined, Bioneer and Bioneers. It has Eco couture which says that Natalie Portman wears hats that are high fashion but friendly to the environment. It is practically a walled garden of neologisms like Viridian design movement which is related to Technogaianism and Bright green environmentalism. This project is more prominent, more notable, broader based, and more deserving of inclusion than most many of the entities presently in the category. Likewise one of the routes emphasized for fighting global warming is "Energy conservation," so it should be in that category, which has only 70 pages. I do not see clutter as a problem with these low numbers. Are the other pages linked to Energy conservation somehow so more deserving? Like Blackle.com which is an advert for a skin of the Google search engine which makes the screen look mostly black? Or Kilowatt Ours, a documentary filim? Or Flick Off a campaign to get Canadians to turn off lights? Or Power of One (energy conservation campaign) a 2 sentence article that says the government of Ireland wants people to save energy? What are the other thousands of article that people will be adding to the 70 or 71 in the 2 categories in question? Let's cross that bridge when we come to it, and not arbitrarily delink this article from 2 closely related categories. These two disputed categories should remain linked to this article. Edison 03:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP is not a platform for promoting awareness of issues such as climate change. We, as editors, are here to create a database of human knowledge that is NPOV, comprehensive AND easy to navigate within. Regardless of how few articles currently exist in a category it is not approp to place articles which have other more suitable subcategories in that cats supercatergory. Not sure if that is clear. In the absence of Category:Environmentalism in the United States it is approp to place it in Category:Environment of the United States since it is a supercategory (correct term?) of Environmentalism in the United States. If the project itself was notable in many countries it would deserve the higher level cats but in this case it is only the issue that is at stake. The example you give of less relevant articles in the Category:Environmentalism is not relevant since if I were to start adding every peice of art (or culture) that related to environmentalism the category would soon become {{Verylarge}}. See also Wikipedia:Categories#Large_categories. We could create a category called Category:Environmentalism in art??!! I suspect such a cat is not needed just yet. -- Alan Liefting talk 02:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, the express theme of "Cool Globes" is not "the environment of the US" or "Environmentalism in the US" but rather it addresses Global Warming, as implied by globes rather than maps of the United States. Your deletions are illogical and detrimental to the Wikipedia project. The categories are supported by the references. Please desist from your deletions of referenced material. Edison 02:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not denying the it is not about a global issue, I am simple denying the art itself is not a globally notable issue. If you were to carefully note my last edit you will see that I was attempting to revert some minor formatting which you are reverting. I did not change any categories or references. -- Alan Liefting talk 02:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So your intent is to change the order in which things are mentioned rather than removing them? Sounds fair enough and I have no objection at all. Edison 03:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was as minor as capitalisation and spacing. Take a close look at the edits - it may not be immediately obvious from using the "compare selected versions". It was that minor that is was not worth doing and discussing. I did inadvertently change the order of the categories but as you realise this is not an issue.-- Alan Liefting talk 04:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Three years later, and you are back to removing the "energy conservation" category from the Cool Globes article, on the grounds that "If a lower level category exists it should be used." You argue that an article cannot be both a member of the category "Environmentalism " "Energy conservation" and the category "Environment of the United States." Is that idea expressed in a policy or guideline? Are you removing other articles from the category "Energy conservation" when they are also in a lower level category such as related to a nation or an industry or computers? Your understanding of categories does not correspond to present Wikipedia practice, as shown by the great many entries in Category:Energy conservation which are also member of "Energy in Denmark" or some other lower level category. See [[2000-watt society], Code for Sustainable Homes, DeepStream Technologies, ENBau, Green Ethernet, and many other articles which are categorized both as a high level and a lower level category related to energy or the environment. I note that you recently edited EcoHomes but left it categorized both as "Low-energy building in the United Kingdom" and "Energy conservation in the United Kingdom." Does your rule apply only to the present article? The "Cool Globes" dealt with the global warming and the world environment, and were absolutely not about just the "environment of the United States." I request that you gain consensus on the article's talk page before continuing the edit war you recently resumed. Perhaps an RFC on the question could gain more input from other editors. Edison (talk) 21:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some replies to your points:

  1. Conceivably an article could be in "Environmentalism " "Energy conservation" and the category "Environment of the United States" categories but that would be unusual and this article does not belong in all of the cats.
  2. I was in the process of of sorting out Category:Energy conservation when my edit to this article came to your attention.
  3. 2000-watt society has a global focus, Code for Sustainable Homes in now recategorised, DeepStream Technologies is up for deletion, ENBau will be recategorised, Green Ethernet seems to be ok in that category.
  4. I am unsure of your point about EcoHomes
  5. "Cool Globes" is about a global issue but is only of local interest. Most of the notable artists were American and the exhibition did not leave Chicago. Therefore it does not need categorising in categories that are for more notable articles that ore of worldwide interest. If we took categorising to the level you suggest Category:Climate change would be overflowing with articles of minor relevance and the more important ones lost amongst them.
  6. The differences we have here hardly require an RfC.

I spent a lot of time looking around WP for other examples of environmental art. I created a Category:Environmental art and this article is almost a candidate. There may be a need for a Category:Environmental works of art at some stage in which case this article is a likely member. User:Alan Liefting/Essays/On categorisation may interest you.-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute your assertion that the exhibition was "only of local interest." The artists were not exclusively of Chicago or "American" renown. See Jaume Plensa, Jim Dine, and Tom Van Sant. In addition, after the 2007 exhibition in Chicago, the "Cool Globes" were exhibited in numerous countries and cities in Europe as well as North America, per the Cool Globes website included as a link in the article: [1]. Here is Times online (London) discussing the exhibition in Copenhagen: [2]. How can you possibly state that an exhibit of art related to global warming and the environment is "almost a candidate" for the category "environmental art??" Your personal essay has no power to dictate how Wikipedia is edited. Try and get input from other editors, rather than forbidding them from editing the essay, and seek consensus to make it into a guideline, then cite it in discussions. Do you deny that this article is about environmentalism and that it is also about energy conservation? It is very specifically and emphatically not about merely "the environment of the United States," since "GLOBAL warming" issues displayed on globes depicting the entire world was the stuff of the exhibit. Hence your insistence on pigeonholing it into the inappropriate low level category and removing it from the appropriate high level categories is flawed and disruptive. Please review Wikipedia:Categorization. Edison (talk) 01:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Chicago Globe 01.JPG[edit]

Image:Chicago Globe 01.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Chicago Globe 04.JPG[edit]

Image:Chicago Globe 04.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Chicago Globes 05.JPG[edit]

Image:Chicago Globes 05.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cool Globes: Hot Ideas for a Cooler Planet. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cool_Globes:_Hot_Ideas_for_a_Cooler_Planet&oldid=1206871910"