Talk:Garbage (disambiguation)

Requested move 31 August 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. No consensus to move the dab page to the base location. BD2412's suggestion of a concept dab is not without merit, but it did not receive much support – certainly not enough to say there is a consensus to move it out of draft space and to Garbage. I'd recommend starting a new RM for that about whether a concept dab would be appropriate. Jenks24 (talk) 06:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

---

Garbage (disambiguation) → Garbage – Since Municipal solid waste and Litter are two separate articles, it does not seem as though there is only one article which the term "garbage" could be considered the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Steel1943 (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment wouldn't litter be just be uncollected solid waste? Thus a subtopic. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
• Comment yes would expect garbage to go direct to collected waste, not dab to litter. Although actually not strongly opposed to move. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support. I would prefer if the page "garbage" goes to the disambiguation page about garbage as garbage has different meanings for different people, and if anything it is more connected to litter in my opinion than to municipal solid waste. I think "garbage" is also used quite a bit in computer terms (e.g. the term "garbage in, garbage out").EvM-Susana (talk) 08:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, this is a clear WP:DABCONCEPT case. Those are not unrelated concepts coincidentally sharing a name. They are types of garbage. bd2412 T 14:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• @BD2412: I'm going to be honest, I find this "oppose" as more of a "support" statement. If there are several subjects currently on the disambiguation page that meet the criteria to be called "garbage" that refer to the same general subject of garbage, would it not make more sense for the disambiguation page to be moved to the base title until the necessary broad concept article is created? Steel1943 (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• No, it would not. That would create the false impression that there is no concept of "garbage" and that the various songs and slang references are of comparable scope and historic importance to the broad and ancient concept of things that get thrown away. Write an article on the concept, including some treatment of the archaeological discoveries of the earliest systems for dealing with garbage; until such an article is written, leave things as they are. [[User:|bd2412]] T 20:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• @BD2412: The major issue I see with retaining the status quo with Garbage currently targeting where it targets is WP:XY; leaving the redirect targeting what it targets if there is more than one possible option of what this subject could represent is unhelpful (Municipal solid waste vs. Litter, per my nomination rationale.) There may not yet be a concept article for "garbage", but unless there is evidence that of all the existing topics on Wikipedia, Garbage should target Municipal solid waste per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT (which is the current situation, and I disagree with it), the situation really should be changed/fixed to accommodate what information we currently have. Steel1943 (talk) 21:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I still don't see why garbage is redirected to municipal solid waste. Why not rather redirect it to "litter"? There is by the way also the page waste which might need to be linked better. EvM-Susana (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@EvM-Susana: I'd rather not see that happen since the term "garbage" could equally be a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Municipal solid waste or Litter (or even Waste); this is why until we have a broad concept article on "garbage" (such as the one that BD2412 suggested above), since we really have no idea which subtopic of "garbage" our readers are trying to locate, it would be better for them to arrive at a disambiguation page so that they can decide which of the main subtopics associated with "garbage" they are trying to locate. Steel1943 (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Arriving at a disambiguation page would make the situation less accurate than it currently is. I don't see why litter is not also discussed to some degree on Municipal solid waste. bd2412 T 21:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, for me that would also be totally fine. I think garbage may mean different things in different countries. So let's remove that redirect so that entering "garbage" leads to the disambiguation page of garbage, where the most likely meaning is mentioned first and all the other ones are listed as well. EvM-Susana (talk) 21:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• @EvM-Susana: Can you provide some examples of garbage meaning different things in different countries? I will add this information to the draft. bd2412 T 22:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the different English-speaking countries (UK, USA, Australia, ...) either use more the term garbage or more the term litter or trash (trash is a term more widely used in the US, isn't it?). I have the feeling in Australia it was more "rubbish". But I don't have a reference at hand that discusses it (see also the opening sentence on municipal solid waste. I just realise we also have this page trash which simply goes to a disambiguation page which is quite well laid out. There are by the way currently 20 terms that redirect to municpal solid waste: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Municipal_solid_waste&hidelinks=1&hidetrans=1 EvM-Susana (talk) 22:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I have created Draft:Garbage. We can explain the range of terminology and usage for all of these there. bd2412 T 04:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmmmm, won't the content be pretty much the same as what we have on the litter page? EvM-Susana (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@EvM-Susana: - quite different. See Draft:Garbage now. bd2412 T 04:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I am still not convinced. Is this your own definition or can you provide a reference for it?: "In urban areas, garbage is collected and treated as municipal solid waste; garbage that is discarded in ways that cause it to end up in the environment, rather than in facilities designed to receive garbage, is considered litter." - the distinction is in practice not so clear cut; think of the case of developing countries, where "garbage" might be sort of collected but dumped in dodgy places (not high tech landfill sites!), therefore does it then turn from garbage into litter? Also take a look at the page on waste picker which might explain further what I am getting at. Is such waste garbage or litter in your way of distinguishing the two? Either way, we'd need good references to back this all up.EvM-Susana (talk) 11:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The section on terminology indicates that terms relating to discarded things have gone from distinctness to amorphousness over time. Your questions demonstrate the need for an article explaining these distinctions. Neither a disambiguation page nor a subtopic page can adequately fulfill this need. bd2412 T 15:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edit lock

This article really needs to be edit locked. Somebody made a correct, accurate edit to the article giving the very well-considered definition of trash as being "Ajit Pai" and somebody keeps reverting to the far less correct prior version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5CC:8301:1FD8:D5F7:4BAA:8B38:821E (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Garbage redirects but Garbage doesn't

Talk:Garbage redirects here to Talk:Garbage (disambiguation), but Garbage doesn't correspondingly redirect to Garbage (disambiguation); this seems wrong, but I'm not sure what the correct fix is. (I suspect that ultimately Garbage should be merged with Municipal solid waste, but that's a much less trivial fix than dealing with a stray redirect.)

Also, there should probably be better interlinking between Garbage and/or Garbage (disambiguation), Trash, and Waste.

— Sonata Green (talk) 01:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• I have fixed the talk page at Talk:Garbage. There does need to be a better delineation of topics - Garbage, Trash, Waste, Rubbish, Refuse, and Municipal solid waste. Generally, all municipal solid waste is garbage, but not all garbage is municipal solid waste, since garbage can be generated in settings far removed from the concept of municipal life (and, as the article notes, even cavemen had garbage). bd2412 T 01:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)