Talk:Reuse

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Sanitation Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sanitation, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sanitation 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.SanitationWikipedia:WikiProject SanitationTemplate:WikiProject Sanitationsanitation articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

================================== Discussion Page Archives ======================================== Archive of personal discussion between User:Jethero and User:Dharmaburning regarding refactoring. Jethero^Talk 03:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reuse magazine/book[edit]

There's a magazine/book that shows how to make things like shoe trees, coffee tables, and shoulder bags from garbage/unneeded stuff. Does anyone know the name of it? I think it would be good to mention that here. Zepheus 01:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Selling used goods[edit]

Does this fall into the scope of reuse? It's certainly a highly important way to reduce waste by reusing existing resources (especially with the advent of electronic networks to aid in matching buyers with sellers), though I'm not sure if it falls under the category 'reuse' or not. Richard001 20:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i'd certainly say so. by using used goods u are reusing existing goods. therefor it is reuse.--Thai-flower 09:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had much more feedback on this - it still remains as a 'see also' link, though I feel it should be a subsection with a link to the main article. Do others agree? Richard001 01:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definition[edit]

atm the concept of reuse is defined as the reuse of goods. whats about the reuse of ideas, concepts etc? i understand the open source movement as an example for reuse. people cooperative develop together instead of separately developing parallel similar things. this is reuse of knowledge.--Thai-flower 21:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Writers, composers, and other artists often reuse their (and other's) previous work in a new context. --83.253.36.136 19:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Software[edit]

See for example Code reuse, Library (computing), Reusability, Reusable software components, Third-party software component, Software framework, Reusable software, and softwarereuse.nasa.gov --83.253.36.136 19:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Regiving page into Regiving section of Reuse page[edit]

Note: This proposal/discussion is about regiVing (and the next proposal/discussion is about regiFTing).

I propose we merge Regiving into Reuse#Regiving and redirect it there, for the following reasons: (please vote according to wikipedia guidelines)

WP:NOT#DICT The existing debate seems to center on defending Regiving as a distinct term. I will pre-concede that it is a disticnt term to save that debate from this page. However the difference between the terms is only a small conceptupal difference which is easily explained in the section on the Reuse page (with perhaps a wiktionary link;currently not available)
WP:V there are no inline citations (sourced statements) in the article (which leads to the NN argument below)
WP:NOT#DIR the most 'useful' part of the article is a directory of links to related topics, which is against policy. This can be accomodated by a Networks Reuse at Curlie link, or the like, in the Regiving section of this article. (note, WP:USEFUL is not a defense)
WP:NN there is nothing in the Regiving article that seems notable to me that is not already coverd in the current paragraph in this page.
but most importantly, the current paragraph in the Reuse article already adequately deals with this topic, or could be slightly expanded. Jethero^Talk 19:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with and second your proposal. Although there are some merits to regiving used in the context of free recycling social sites, the content of this page was born primarily of a deep misunderstanding. SagePose originally started the regiving page intending to better define Freecycle's efforts without violating their trademark, though it seemed mostly to be satire, but ironically misunderstood the intention of group discussions at the time (Nov/Dec 06) strategizing how to promote freecycle after the holidays so members could "regift" their holiday presents. Married to the subject, he then proselytized it to other 'related' pages. It was a very awkward square peg. Other editors that have since removed regiving references from other wiki pages would seem to share these sentiments. Here is some discussion to further clarify the point. Dharmaburning 23:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An uncharitable attack from Dharmaburning. My contribution was neither satire nor misunderstood nor "proselytized" - the choice of words does not suggest good faith, and would be useful to leave corporate allegiances out of the discussion. I know people in many regiving/regifting groups and am well acquainted with the usage. SagePose 10:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging regiving and regifting seems sensible (one has the English language in its defense, the other Seinfeld). Merging regiving and reuse isn't quite as clear. Regiving appears to be sufficiently different in its motivations, implementations and end results to generic reuse to merit a separate topic. SagePose 10:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think regiving deserves its own category. The act of regiving has become real and tangible with the advent of the Internet as a forum where items can be donated for altruistic reasons and where reward is explicitly prohibited. Also given the approach of The Freecycle Network to attempt to dominate the term Freecycle, legally I think regiving has an excellent future. User:Andyswarbs

Disagree - I think it should remain separate - it has the potential to grow as a distinct and comprehensive article of its own. I also agree with everything posted by Andyswarbs, above. -- MLD · T · C · @: 10:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - SagePose, Andyswarbs and MLD all have good points. I think the merge tag can be removed from Regiving. If noone opposes, I'll do that in a few days. Waldir 15:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

did it. Waldir ^talk 02:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Regifting page into Regiving section of Reuse page[edit]

Note: This proposal/discussion is about regiFTing (and the proposal/discussion above is about regiVing).

I propose we merge Regifting into Reuse#Regiving and redirect it there, for the following reasons: (please vote according to wikipedia guidelines)

WP:NOT#DICT The existing page seems to center on showing that the term is used in media and staking a claim for first use (incorrectly) as a particular sitcom. I will pre-concede that it is a disticnt term, and it's exact etymology is in the realm of a dictionary (and is probalby trivial combination of re- and gift). Further, the conceptual distinction between the action of regifting, regiving, and simply reusing are important but very minor, and can and are covered quite fully in the Regiving paragraph on this page and the lead in paragraph of the Gift page. We can add a wiktionary link to 'regift'.
WP:NOT#DIR the most 'useful' part of the article is a directory of links to usages of the word. This can be accomodated by word usage website or dictionary, not wikipedia
WP:NN there is little assertion of notability in the Regifting article that is not covered in the Gift lead-in or the Regiving section. For example, why is it important or notable that this particular word was used by those particular media outlets?
WP:V the one interesting and potentially notable (in my POV) mention of the white elephant gift exchange is not sourced
but most importantly, the current paragraph in the Reuse article could already adequately deal with this topic in approximately one sentence. Jethero^Talk
- note: I will also consider here votes for/against the alternative of adding a mention of regifting into the Gift#Kinds of gifts section instead Jethero^Talk 20:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- the article is of interest because it's an example of a word invented in pop culture rapidly being accepted into the language. Besides that, there's a set of etiquette around regifting that should also be in the article (and would make it more encyclopedic). In those regards, regifting is itself much different than the much more generic "reuse" topic (which is more environmental than cultural). I would like to see the regifting article expanded, rather than merged here. --MisterHand 11:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- rebutal Word etymology belongs in wiktionary (and popularizing is not the same as inventing). Etiquette angle is clearly notable, if properly referenced. But that could easily be encompassed in existing 'gift' and 'reuse' pages. Disagree that regifting doesn't have an environmental (resource sparing or waste cycling) component. I can't immediately imagine what references we might find that would support that distinction. Perhaps the term could also be 'listed' as an example on a page discussion the notability of terms that have been popularized by media, if it exists. Jethero^Talk 04:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Did find this survey [1] that claims more than 1/2 of people surveyed regift because the gift will be appreciated and more than 1/2 don't find it rude (a.k.a. decietful?). Also, significant number (1/3) do so to save money (a.k.a. resources). Jethero^Talk 04:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- rebutal The article does not currently assert it's notability as 'an example of a word invented in pop culture rapidly being accepted into the language' and is not currently tied into or mentioned on articles discussing that type topic (etymology, popular culture, popular culture studies etc), however, in case wikipedians do want to have an collection of all examples where words become popularized by a television show, I've added it to the category 'Slang' where you will find words like Cowabunga. -- Jethero^Talk 05:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Your intention to expand the article around the topic of ettiquette is reasonable. Might it be possible to summarize it sufficiently within a few sentences on the 'gift' or 'reuse' pages? Jethero^Talk 05:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- Regifting and regiving are distinct social concepts with more than minor differences. Regifting is notable not principally because it constitutes reuse of a good, but because of the deceit and ambiguous ettiquette associated with the act. I don't think the concepts are conceptually related enough for a merge. --Poshua 22:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- rebutal - somewhat agree. The main regifting section could be on the 'gift' page, with reference from the 'regiving' or it's own 'regifting' section on the 'reuse' page. You are correct, we could be proposing merging regift into both the 'reuse' and/or 'gift' pages, not just the 'regiving' section of the reuse page. (a special type of gift, a special type of reuse, defined, with etymology in wiktionary). Disagree that distinction between regift and regive alone constitutes notability for a distinct article. Disagree that there is implicit deceit in regifting. Regift actions may be transparent and well appreciated and still constitute a regift. Jethero^Talk 04:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- I'm strongly against merging. If you look through the published sources (I'm just going through some on-line newspapers via Nexus at the moment) the word regift has specific social implications that have little to do with re-use and there are many articles available discussing the act of re-gifting Christmas presents since it's popularity in 1995. The fact that in the Seinfeld episode in 1995, the word had negative social implications ("He's an Indian giver") and a decade later there are many article which make it a positive act due to the influence of the recycling ethos is worth capturing.

Out of interest you will note a recent press reference to this Wikipedia page:

Talk of the Day. December 25, 2008. (St. Louis Post-Dispatch) -- It's Christmas Day, the fifth day of Hanukkah, and the day before Kwanzaa. You probably received your gifts already, or soon will. There's talk on various television news shows, talk shows and other media that because of the economy, many will be regifting their loot this year. According to Wikipedia Regifting is the act of taking a gift that has been received and giving it to somebody else, sometimes in the guise of a new gift. There is even a website regiftable.com to help give you ideas or share your regifting stories. Will you regift anything that you've received this week, and why? Or have you ever regifted anything in the past? If so, share your stories with us. —Ashleyvh (talk) 10:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reuse category[edit]

I believe Reuse begs for it's own category and would be very useful, relating to a wide variety of articles on waste hierarchy, recycling, free recycling, waste sorting, gift economy, etc. Dharmaburning 08:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully restate your note as:

I propose Reuse be the flagship page of a new 'Reuse' category, relating a wide variety of articles on waste hierarchy, recycling, free recycling, waste sorting, gift economy, Dharmaburning 08:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC) courtesy of Jethero^Talk 19:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Go ahead. Jethero^Talk 19:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. Thinking about this during my commute, I'd meant to also add that this would provide a page to easily find the various reuse initiative pages, as there are many and they continue to multiply. As it's been stated here and elsewhere, it's not the wiki way to turn related pages into launch-pad lists of similar initiatives, so this would help alleviate this problem. Dharmaburning 02:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to agree and add these pages ot your reuse category (if they are not successfully merged): Regifting, Regiving Freganism, Used good, Secondary market, Auction, Depreciation, Appreciation. Further, the 'waste management' category does not seem to fully encompase the idea of reuse, as many items find new users or new uses without coming close to consideration as 'waste' or 'refuse' (antiques, pieces of art, unused raw materials, clothing, compost, etc)Jethero^Talk 03:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reuse of information[edit]

I added a draft section on the importance of reuse of information, in software where much programming code is built from reusable objects and components to documentation, where text is written once and reused in many places and output in many formats. Bobdoyle 15:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know how to redirect[edit]

Don't know how to redirect. We need redirecting to here from re-use and re-using, etc. Korky Day (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New article of CREATIVE RE-USES?[edit]

Can we have as a new article a long list of CREATIVE RE-USES? There are books on it, but I can't find a WP article. Examples: egg cartons to start seedlings or as sound abatement on recording studio walls, shredded office paper for padding in packing boxes, a vitamin pill bottle to carry your coins, old synthetic carpet to put on the ground where you don't want plants to grow, cereal boxes to slit open and use as file folders, etc. Korky Day (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a bit trivial and list-y. Remember, WP isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 2008 External links removed[edit]

As the topic is generic, it seems excessive to include links to specific states or cities for specific reuse centers or projects. I have left links where they appear global or country-wide. The removed links are:

The following are articles and should be referenced from the main text if added as links:

—Ashleyvh (talk) 07:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For companies/programs without Wikipedia links, external links to their websites are fine (or in references as I've done with several--ideally via a third-party source). —Eekerz ^(t) 18:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oct. 2014 Added information on reuse of wastewater[edit]

I have added in the examples section the example of reuse of wastewater (and of excreta) in agriculture. In the sphere that I operate in (sanitation) we use the term reuse a lot, it is very important for us. So I hope you will agree with me that it's an important example for reuse.

I guess one could even add further example of wastewater reuse for other purposes (i.e. not just in agriculture, but e.g. for toilet flushing), but for now I will leave that up to someone else to add. EvM-Susana (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Topic about reuse plz[edit]

Topic 39.44.163.115 (talk) 07:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pizza Hut restaurants?[edit]

This article fails to mention the phenomenon of older Pizza Hut restaurants, with their iconic roofs, being repurposed into other venues. I think that would be a good visual representation of a building being reused. MightyArms (talk) 04:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reuse[edit]

48ta 163.53.74.156 (talk) 03:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]