Talk:Anthroponics

Merge/delete article

This is an unnecessary article. The content is already existing at reuse of excreta. I therefore propose a merge and delete. Apart from that, the article is poorly written, e.g. none of the references have hyperlinks.EMsmile (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

reuse of excreta features no specific mention of soiless reuse of urine other than wetlands (which typically do not incorporate edible crops). It would be relevant if reuse of excreta and Hydroponics linked to Anthroponics. Hyperlinks will be added to the references, though full-article access might be restricted for journal articles --Vexotudo (talk) 09:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the URLs. Some go to this page: http://anthroponics.com/ Is this your page? I wonder if it's just someone's hobby. I am not doubting that urine is good as fertiliser, I am just doubting that we need this new term "anthroponics". Put it in Google and you get very few hits. If there is stuff on urine reuse which you think needs to be on Wikipedia why not simply add it to the existing article on reuse of excreta or on Hydroponics? Literally your term would mean humans being used in ponic fertigation which is not what is happening with urine reuse. Faeces are composted or treated prior to reuse so that isn't anthro either. - You will get more attention for your subject if you integrate it into existing relevant Wikipedia articles rather than starting a new term that is unnecessary. By the way, have you seen all the stuff on urine reuse here on the SuSanA discussion forum?: http://forum.susana.org/175-urine-reuse-or-infiltration This might be a good place for you to spread your ideas. EMsmile (talk) 10:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

When I googled the term anthroponics I saw quite some hits. I think it's a useful term because it is an entirely new field, not just limited to urine and hydroponics. Urine in hydroponics is commonly referred to as "peeponics", "urineponics" or even "bioponics" which is limiting since it doesn't factor municipal wastewater uses in hydroponics (urine and feces combined). Anthroponics seems to be a more suitable term than "wasteponics" or "reuse of excreta in hydroponics" since it's short, to the point, and obviously nobody would use humans in hydroponics and promote it openly. This was the reasoning behind the adoption of the term anthroponics, which I found in the website you linked to: "I heard the first use of anthroponics through a contact of Louise, Folke Günther, a former wastewater-engineer-now-turned-aquaponics-enthusiast. Since hydroponics essentially means “to put the water to work”, and aquaponics means “to put the fish to work”, it felt like a better term (anthro is a shorter version of anthropo which means human being) than peeponics. It could also be used for both types of human waste." source. In some research the municipal wastewater is not composted or significantly treated in any chemically/biologically way before being added to the hydroponics system (see here, here and here). I can agree that maybe it doesn't warrant a page of its own yet since it's a very recent field of study and without a peer-reviewed accepted research paper using the term, but at least all the information in this page should be displayed in the hydroponics page (I'm not sure I have the experience to do it myself) and in the reuse of excreta page.--Vexotudo (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I also googled the term again: 3400 hits is really not much for that term which is certainly not yet well established. For a Wikipedia novice you have done a good job in setting up the page! I suggest you very gently now move the content to hydroponics or to reuse of excreta and afterwards we delete the article. When I say gently I mean, don't move it all in one go but add it bit by bit, saving often. Question is which article does it fit better to? Don't insert the same content in both articles. Rather put the bulk in one and then make a link from the other article to that one with a sentence or two.EMsmile (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I have moved two references to reuse of excreta but the est is too much WP:OR. Have proposed the page for deletion now.EMsmile (talk) 22:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

You have removed the deletion, tag, User:Northamerica1000. Just because the term is mentioned in an article or two, does it really mean the topic deserves its own Wikipedia article? I don't think so. It is not that notable WP:NOTABLE. When you look at the content of the article it mainly takes about using urine as a fertiliser. This is adding nothing new compared to what we already have at reuse of excreta. If anything it should explain the link with hydroponics! In fact, I think I still think it should be merged into hydroponics.EMsmile (talk) 08:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

If you're for a merge to hydroponics, then why propose the article for deletion (diff)? Perhaps consider adding merge tags to this article and the hydroponics article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

While I think having it's own page is reasonable (same logic as with aquaponics and organic hydroponics), I understand that it might be early, therefore being more sensible to merge it with hydroponics at the moment. I propose that this page in its entirety is added to a category in hydroponics (so the content and sources aren't lost), and that the links made from BioHome and Reuse of Excreta link to this new category in the hydroponics page Vexotudo (talk) 09:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm alright with either retaining the article or merging to hydroponics. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

What about EMsmile concerns about the term not being used enough? If the page is kept, maybe it should be renamed? Something like Wastewater hydroponics or Urine hydroponics? Vexotudo (talk) 09:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The article's main content is about urine reuse - and says nothing really about hydroponics. The urine reuse part is nothing new and already has its own article as part of "reuse of excreta". If people want to strengthen the "use of urine as fertiliser" part, you could create a new article for that (and move content from reuse of excreta to there, leaving only a short piece under "reuse of excreta"). It could be called "urine-based fertiliser" or something like that. However, I am strongly against this articifical creation of a new term "anthroponics" which might be pushed as a new term by a couple of researchers but is so far not sticking and also not needed. Looking at that long list of references, most of them are by the same people and these references are not reliable sources in my opinion, just people's Masters theses or alike, but not WP:RS. EMsmile (talk) 09:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I wrote about the urine part a bit more in detail since that is the fascinating aspect of it. In every other way, an anthroponics system is identical to an (organic) hydroponics system (both can work with Media beds, nutrient film technique, deep water culture, vertical towers, probably even aeroponically, both add oxygen in some way or another, both have faster growth rates than conventional geoponic growth, reduced weed occurrance, reduced pest exposure depending on the substrate, etc), and it is also important to understand how it works so people don't read about it and decide to try it by just urinating into their normal hydroponic system they might have... If your only (and valid) concern is the term and the content, then I can add more content underlying how it is essentially a hydroponics system, and we should decide on a new name that stresses it uses human waste and hydroponics (I suggested Wastewater hydroponics or Urine hydroponics above, but by far the most common search term is peeponics, though I thought at first that might be too crass for wikipedia), so we can get this over with and focus on more important things. Vexotudo (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

If you feel strongly about this topic and want more people to read about it, you would have more impact if you incorporated this content into the existing article on hydroponics...EMsmile (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

What's with the immediate haste for deletion/merging/etc. Maybe just leave it in place for now, eh? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not a "haste", it's been going on for 2 months now. I just like to keep Wikipedia high quality and want to make sure people find correct information in the right places. I also want to avoid inefficiencies, such as writing about urine as a fertiliser in two articles, rather than in one. The information here about urine as a fertiliser already exists (but better) in reuse of excreta. But anyway, I also have better things to do, so... EMsmile (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry if I came across as snippy, not my intention. A lot of this comes down to whether or not the topic meets WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)