Talk:Bio-energy with carbon storage

Disambiguation page & Merger

The article has been tagged for merger without any comments since September 2009. I put one picture from this article into the biochar article (which previously lacked pictures all together). The term Bio-energy with carbon storage is less widely used (e.g. by the IPCC) than the titles of the articles which this page now points to, and since there is a severe possibility with excess information and editing overlaps between the articles, this page may be better off as a disambiguation page. The two other articles have thrived the last six months, while this one has remained weak (in my opinion). Also, this merger/disambiguation page remake may resolve the previous discussions (see below). Any comments or suggestions? Nepomuk 3 (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Focus

Since BECS can refer to multiple technologies, perhaps this article should focus on differentiating between the technologies, rather than describing them and fall into the multiple issues-problem.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nepomuk 3 (talk • contribs)

Pls sign this whoever wrote itAndrewjlockley (talk) 23:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Can someone describe what this actually is? The article is less than clear how this is different than most of the other blue links in the lead. -Atmoz (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It's inclusive of biochar with energy recovery.Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I made some changes to make the focus on geoengineering more visible and clarify that from technology point of view, it is not different from CCS of fossil fuels. However, I am not sure if the potential problem with WP:SYNTH is finally solved or it needs more cleanup.Beagel (talk) 18:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge content into two existing articles?

Now there are good articles both on biochar and on Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (and a section in an other article on the not-very-relevant biomass burial concept). My suggestion is that the content of this page is merged into those articles, and that this page is turned into a disambiguation page (no offense to you Andrewjlockley who created the article in the first place!). In this way, there will be less problems with WP:FORK and multiple issues on the same page. For example, right now the "justifications" and "potential problems" sections of this page refer sometimes to biochar, sometimes to bio energy with carbon capture and storage. Nepomuk 3 (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge?

Bio-energy with carbon storage has been merge tagged for inclusion into this article. I suggest this is unwise, as the proposal is geoengineering, not biofuel. In any event, it is separately notable.Andrewjlockley (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC) I agree this is not appropriate, since this is indeed a separate subject, or even group of subjects. Nepomuk 3 (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I will de-tag it. I'm watching this page and will revert if there are any objections.Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That was very fast removal of merge proposal tag. I think that the tag should be re-added to have more discussion. As I see from the previous section, it is not only me who is confused with this article. And I am even more confused after the comment that this is about geoengineering. Because there is no consensus if it could be considered as geoengineering or not. In some cases (or most of the cases) the life-cycle of biofuels creates more emissions than could be taken off by CCS. Although, taking about the balance, taking off 1 ton of CO2 created by combustion of biofuels has same effect than taking off 1 ton of CO2 created by combustion of fossil fuels and releasing to the atmosphere 1 ton of CO2 created by combustion of biofuels without CCS.

So, after reconsidering my proposal is to merge this article (as also the Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage) into Geoengineering. If there would be consensus about keeping this article, it should be merged with the Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage.Beagel (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This article should be merged somewhere; geoengineering sounds good. Plus, I fail to see the difference between Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage and this article. -Atmoz (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It has been established that minor geoengineering articles should NOT be merged into the main article - it would be far too long! This was demonstrated conclusively by the failed AfD request on stratospheric sulfur aerosols (geoengineering). As regards the BECS/BECCS confusion, I've clarified the article lead again to address the confusion. Please tell me if it's OK now. I think the tag should come off, but I'm not doing it as I don't want to breach WP:1RR.Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

As stated previously, I agree with Andrewjlockley that there is a point in keeping subjects apart in different articles rather than confusing them in one single or a few giant articles. The knowledge base around these subjects is expanding very fast through more and more published scientific articles. Merging the articles in Wikipedia will not help the reader looking for knowledge and understanding. Though, I will try to find time to write about BECS as well as BECCS on the geoengineering page.Nepomuk 3 (talk) 09:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC) — Nepomuk 3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Can someone please remove the merge tag as this process has already been debated at length and settled. There's already summary coverage on the geoeng page, but doubtless it could be improved.Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Andrewjlockley and Nepomuk 3. BECS and BECCS should not be merged with geoengineering. Furthermore, BECS and BECCS should be kept apart as well, they are different technologies, more different than they first appear. I plan to do some writing about BECCS.Karl Josef (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)— Karl Josef (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This articles makes clear that BECCS is one method of BECS. As both articles are sort, I dont see any reason why they can't be merged. And i don't see, what you can add about BECCS because from the technological point of view this is a same CCS technology wht we have related to fossils fuels. Beagel (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Beagel. A single more complete article would be better than two shorter ones. Among other things, it would be naturally conducive to explaining the similarities and differences between the methods. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I think there's a reasonable case to merge BECS and BECCS. BECCS is just a branch of BECS. They're short articles and small subjects, unlike say biofuel and geoengineering which are massive subjects with long articles.Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

SPAs

It is interesting how new editors appear during last days to edit these two articles. Of course, I sincerely believe this is just a co-incident; however, I also hope that there is no violation of WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT policies. Beagel (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia. BECCS is a very interesting technology I encountered quite recently, but studied quite extensively. When I saw what happened to the BECS/BECCS articles I created my one and only account to make some short comments. I believe there should be a separate article for BECCS and hope do a proper contribution in due time. Karl Josef (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Please assume WP:GOODFAITH. Please note that the IP is different to that of mine!Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

COI?

Someone added a COI tag. I'd expect some discussion at least naming the COI-ee, and providing some evidence William M. Connolley (talk) 19:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It was me. User:Andrewjlockley states at his userpage: "I'm a Masters of Engineering graduate from the University of Birmingham with nearly 20 years experience in environmental campaigning, notably with Friends of the Earth, which I was a director of." I personally see here some potential conflict of interest and put this tag for checking this text for neutrality by some experienced editor. Beagel (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ha, you think this is bad, check geoengineering etc William M. Connolley (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Should I tag every single article I create or edit?Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I will de-tag pending resolution of this issue. As I (almost) only do GW articles, I'd have to tag about 25 articles with a COI tag, which would just be daft.Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to tag every article. However, it would be probably appropriate to mention at the related articles talk pages your background, because taking into account your background, I see there some potential risk for the conflict of interests. Concerning this article, as I said I put this tag for neutrality check by some more experienced editor. I agree that after current changes there is no need for this tag anymore. Beagel (talk) 08:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concerns but I don't see this approach being used widely on WP. Therefore, I'm going to pass on your suggestion. I am closely watched by many editors anyway, due to my prolific work rate, and allegedly rubbish editing :-)Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Demerge

The merge wasn't done properly and was reverted. The lead of this article fails to distinguish the 2 techniques in terms of their operations and in terms of critiques. The see also tag was still up. Best to just un-merge (done)Andrewjlockley (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean "The merge wasn't done properly and was reverted"? Why are you talking about yourself in the third person? I've taken out the see-also, if that makes you happy William M. Connolley (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I was explaining what I did. BECCS and BECS are separate techniques, different in their treatment of biochar for example. as people may search for both I think we should leave both up - although I'm weak on this. Andrewjlockley (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Well, I think that this opinion describes very well the point why to merge these articles. Nothing has really changed. The concern, that people may search for both, is addressed by the redirect – this is exactly what for we have redirects in Wikipedia. Beagel (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The current problem with the BECS article is that there may be a multiple issues problem. Since some of the references only deal with Biochar and some only with BECCS, there is right now considerable confusion, especially in the justifications and potential problems sections. Perhaps the BECS page should be made into a disambiguation page, and the contents put into the biochar and BECCS articles respectively? Nepomuk 3 (talk) 01:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

There's an WP:AfD debate about BECCS: please contribute. BECS is an established term which includes biochar and BECCS, and perhaps other techniques in future. We've got very similar issues at waste heat, and in my views it's absolutely essential that articles should be correctly titled. There are already disambiguation pages for Becs. Andrewjlockley (talk) 07:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage

There is no need for two articles on the same topic. As was discussed before. The fact that there was not a consensus for deletion does not mean there is not a consensus to merge. -Atmoz (talk) 07:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The merger was discussed during the deletion and there was no consensus for that outcome. The consensus is to retain. Please respect that consensus. Andrewjlockley (talk) 07:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You need to either read more, or better. No consensus is no consensus, not consensus for retaining. There are two keeps, and 3 for deletion or merge on the AfD. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Please speak to the admin who closed the AfD if you don't like their decision. The matter has been considered and rejected. The article stays. Re-propose it for deletion if you don't like it. I am getting really bored of the complete lack of respect for AfD's. If you don't think the AfD process is fit for purpose, argue for it's amendment/scrapping. Until then, consensus indicates it should be respected and obeyed. Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

There has been no consensus. Read the AfD. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

And the procedure in such cases is to keep the article. Re-nom if you don't like it. Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the default is to keep the article. But the fact that an AfD can have a merge or redirect outcome does not imply - neither logically nor within Wikipedia customs - that a merge or redirect requires an AfD. See WP:BEFORE, as before. But, to beat a dead horse, you explicitly wrote "The consensus is to retain", something that is clearly contradicted by the "No consensus" outcome - you don't even need to be able read it, simple pattern matching suffices. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The consensus is to obey the AFD procedure. The procedure is to retain in the event of no consensus having been reached. This stands until there's either a new policy, a new AfD or significant changes to other factors (e.g. the subject being re-named in the real world). Ergo: The article stays. Please can we get on with some real work instead of me repeatedly explaining why Atmoz isn't allowed to delete articles willy-nilly? Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe this is the 4th time (in less days) i've seen you lecture an administrator about Wikipedia rules, and the n'th time you've disregarded consensus and comments. Perhaps you should ponder that abit? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain why we need two articles on the same topic? It'd be like having global warming, global warming (CO2), global warming (CH4),... These two articles are about using biofuels and then sequestering it. The lead of BECSS says "Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage, BECCS, is a climate change mitigation technology where carbon capture and storage is applied to facilities which burn or in other ways process biomass." That is, it's BECS. It says so right there in the lead. -Atmoz (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

For the same reason we have an article on cow and one on animal, or one on natural numbers and one one real numbers. People search for and view the separate articles. Further, google hates redirects, and we're here to be found by those who seek information. If you feel that strongly, make it a stub and put a seealso link to BECS. Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You examples aren't relevant here. It's possible to describe BECCS on the BECS page without having an article that's too long. WP:SIZE. You want to have a stub with the sole purpose of being to link to another page? Simply because Google doesn't like redirects? Seems pretty silly to me. -Atmoz (talk) 00:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I am simply suggesting that where 2 subjects exist, one being a subset of the other, then in principle they deserve their own article. If you try searching on google for any page that's just a redirect, you will discover that they don't show up. Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

First, it's not our job to work around alleged defects of Google. But secondly, [1]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

That's an exception, due to a very high number of inbound links. A better example of my point is kitten and cat. The precedent is clear IMO - sub-categories get their own article, provided they're a big enough subject to be capable of developing into a proper article over time. Andrewjlockley (talk) 07:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• We are not here to optimize for Google. That is one of the worst arguments i've heard yet. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
• If its an exception, its a frequent one. [2], "SS+Titanic"&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a, "HMS+Hood+(1918)"&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a, "Apollo+Program"&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The google point is secondary, but try it on some newer/minor articles. The fundamental point is that the main article on a topic should be the lowest-order article. See the way the GW cascades into EoGW, RACC, etc. Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the fact that Google does not find new or, presumably, not very good article is no surprise. I don't quite understand your second point, but it looks as if that would be solved by having a rename, not a second article (Special AJL Note: I do NOT propose nor support a rename right now. I have no current opinion on that). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not clear what you mean. FYI google ranks by a combination of where and how frequently the search term appears on the target page, and the number and relevance of inbound links. It has no idea how 'good' an article is, only how long it is, what words it contains, and which pages link to it. See Search engine optimisation. This is not the main reason for not arbitrarily deleting articles! Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Neither am I about you. Google uses a large number of algorithms, many of them proprietary and carefully guarded. I wouldn't be surprised if they even special-case Wikipedia redirects. But that's neither here nor there - Google is very nearly irrelevant on how we build this encyclopedia. And what do you mean by "arbitrarly"? As has been pointed out numerous times, these articles deal with the same topic, or as close as makes no difference. In that case, having one article is better for collaboration, watching, maintenance, and the reader. If the article ever becomes cumbersome, parts could be split of, but even then this particular split seems to be lousy.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a fair point, so why not re-instante the article, and mark it for deletion. That's the wiki way! I am mildly opposed to a deletion, but i am very strongly opposed to gung-ho deletion. Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the Wiki way is to avoid unnecessary process and, in a pinch to ignore all rules. And in this case, WP:BEFORE explicitly states that a merger/redirect requires no AfD. Note that the history is still available, so if there is any useful information you want to transfer, it's right there. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

That;s true only with a relevant redirect. Consensus is still preferable in any event. Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)