Talk:Environmentally friendly
<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Environmentally friendly Template:Pagetype. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Template:Find sources |
| Archives: Template:Comma separated entries<templatestyles src="Template:Tooltip/styles.css" />Auto-archiving periodScript error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".: Template:Human readable duration File:Information icon4.svg |
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".
Template:WikiProject banner shell Template:Annual readership
Template:Spotlighted Template:Tmbox
Spotlight
Header Section
Possible Sources
Labels
The websites given are not good enough for the source - do google searches and try to get some info - remember to cite!
North America
- USA:
- Green Seal
Oceania
- Australia:
- New Zealand:
Asia
- China
- Japan
- Korea (not sure which)
Possible Sources
Methods
Pest control section
Possible Sources
Waste Management section
Possible Sources
Clean Tech
Possible Sources
Useless article
This article is titled "environmentally friently". All regulators and standards organizations recommend NOT using this vague term. It is only used (and abused) in advertising. Should this article be deleted? Rlsheehan (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- If we are to keep this article, it should be limited to the first sections that discuss the limitations of the term "ennvironmentally friendly". The Methods section tries to add validity to a term already invalidated. I have thus removed Methods. Rlsheehan (talk) 14:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Very interesting point you bring up here, Rlsheehan. Do you have a source for this info that it is not recommended to use? I am trying to improve the quality of the eco-friendly dentistry page. It is very hard to write about it in a neutral point of view, and I would like to establish context for the term. --Asktheboh96 (talk) 12:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Trying to make our world a better place!!!
This is an important term and Environmentally friendly should be kept. It is important that people know it is an intentionally misused term and it is a form of Greenwashing. It should not be deleted. Rhstafursky (talk) 13:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- The US Federal Trade Commission has a good discussion of terms used (and misused) regarding environmental claims. See: https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/federal_register_notices/guides-use-environmental-marketing-claims-green-guides/greenguidesfrn.pdf. Rlsheehan (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Environmentally friendly. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070212115647/http://ec.europa.eu:80/environment/ecolabel/pdf/meetings/draftmin0905.pdf to http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecolabel/pdf/meetings/draftmin0905.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070701234814/http://www.energyrating.gov.au:80/man1.html to http://www.energyrating.gov.au/man1.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070713095412/http://www.energyrating.gov.au:80/star.html to http://www.energyrating.gov.au/star.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070713103618/http://www.energyrating.gov.au:80/con3.html to http://www.energyrating.gov.au/con3.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Environmentally friendly. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705195538/http://epn.dk/privatokonomi/investering/article1374993.ece to http://epn.dk/privatokonomi/investering/article1374993.ece
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecolabel/pdf/meetings/draftmin0905.pdf
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.energyrating.gov.au/man1.html
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.energyrating.gov.au/star.html
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.energyrating.gov.au/con3.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070703110036/http://www.energystar.gov.au/ to http://www.energystar.gov.au/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: ENGL 15
Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment
— Assignment last updated by Jialeijiang (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Oceania Addtion
The information is pretty outdated an bare and there are now more articles on the topic, so it should be easy to add some additional information. The current sections consists of only two sentence and is backed up with four sources. Halfrated (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
What?
Question to the assignees: What do you personally think you added in terms of "environmental friendliness"? I'll tell you my impression: Almost nothing at all. Simply listing the environmental problems in the global regions and repeating words doesn't cut it. The overall result is, frankly, not good. Wonder what your supervisor had to say about this. -- Kku (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)