Talk:Environmental noise

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Nuisance vs Environmental 2 Noise music 3 Hyperacousis & auditive hypersensibility 4 Building Noise Hierarchy 5 Environmental noise should be merged with Noise pollution

[edit] Nuisance vs Environmental

one thought: (nuisance) isn't what could be called an encyclopedic term, exactly. is my previous suggestion (environmental) so far fetched? -- Kku 12:52 30 May 2003 (UTC)

As we agreed, I have moved noise (nuisance) to noise (environmental). However, I would like to defend the word nuisance. It is used in a legal context in the UK (and probably elsewhere) to mean something that interferes with another's right to enjoyment. I changed it not because it was not 'encyclopedic', but because it was too narrow. -- Heron

yup, see nuisance Whitejay²⁵¹ 14:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Noise music

The middle two paragraphs should be moved and merged into noise music and a mere mention left behind to illustrate subjectivity of noise. I'm slapping on a cleanup tag. Whitejay²⁵¹ 14:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

and nominating at AID Whitejay²⁵¹ 15:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hyperacousis & auditive hypersensibility

Do hyperacousis and auditive hypersensibility belong to this page? After all, they produce more unwanted noise for their sufferers. --anon

• No I don't think so, but they deserve their own pages linked from here. --Lindosland 21:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Building Noise Hierarchy

This page is now one of many forming a hierarchy under Noise. Please look at that page before editing this, and also note my comments regarding the fact that noise is not a good candidate for disambiguation. There's much to do by way of expanding and cross-linking now, but please do so with reference to the 'root page' --Lindosland 17:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Environmental noise should be merged with Noise pollution

this is the only logical step, since they are definitionally the same, but most of the public uses the term noise pollution. to scientists these terms are the same in meaning...also theere is no meat presently under the Environmental noise article. Anlace 04:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a good example, I suggest, of why there is a need for the Root page concept, which I proposed as Wikipedia policy. I made Noise into a demonstration page for the concept, and created many new articles including Noise (environmental) to prevent an attempt at disambiguation which had fragmented its content unnacceptably.

Environmental noise is perhaps a more formal title (its administered by environmental health departments), and part of a whole series, so I suggest merging Noise pollution into it, with a redirect from Noise pollution. Despite a thorough search, as I thought, I did not become aware of this page until now - a good example of why we need a concept like Root page to assist coordinated editing. --Lindosland 13:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

thanks lindosland for your support for the merge... just to clarify Environmental Noise could be the surviving article heading, since it is the clearer term to scientists with a redirect from Noise pollution or it could be the opposite where the surviving article name is Noise pollution since that name is more well known by the gerneral public. depends on whether we see this topic as enlightening the public or accepting the common term :} i myself am open minded here. would like to hear what others think

Anlace 14:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC).

actually we are talking about a 3-merge since the topic environmental noise doesnt yet exist. anyway we need to better associate all three terms Noise (environmental), Noise pollution and Environmental noise...Anlace 14:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Not all environmental noise is noise pollution, though all noise pollution is environmental noise. Hyacinth 11:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

hi hyacinth..appreciate your joining this dialog...im not sure i agree with your first assertion...current usage by acoustical scientists tend to use the terms noise pollution and environmental noise interchangeably...noise pollution is simply a term used more by the public whereas professionals in the field prefer environmental noise....could you give me an example to support your assertion that "not all environmental noise is noise pollution"? best regards Anlace 14:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I would support a merge into both Noise Pollution and Noise. I think a partial redirection of links to Noise Pollution for references to undesirable noise and other redirections to just noise for general references would be appropriate. I am not keen on using Environmental noise. What is the difference between plain noise and Environmental noise? - Shiftchange 01:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

hi shift, there is a big difference between noise and Environmental noise. noise is actually quite a generic term which is used in the fields of electronics, radio tranmission, tv reception as well as acoustics; whereas Environmental noise is used almost exclusively to denote acoustical or sound characteristics. In the last 20 years in the professional approach to noise pollution, the term Environmental noise is gaining dominance for the description of the discussion of noise pollution and regulatory standards. I have developed Noise Elements and standards for over 30 different cities as well as helped with EPA noise guidelines and have followed the evolution of use of terms closely. regards, Anlace 02:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

hello again, although i fostered the merge, i want to state one other possibility: to end up with two separate articles: Noise pollution could be pretty much the way it is; Environmental noise could be more of a technical article with less reference to health effects and would emphasize the science of noise propagation and even hearing. The advantage of this outcome is that it would mirror a discussion we are having on Template:Environmental science where we are making a clear distinction between articles on environmentalm vs environmental science. there is a place for both concepts on wikipedia. what do others think before we do a final vote?best regards to my colleages for whom im gaining more respect by the day Anlace 03:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, created Noise in its present form as part of an excercise to sort out a mess of noise articles, some of which were by folk who seemed think noise was a term resricted to their field. I stopped disambiguation, and started the Root page concept because I realised that all the noise topics do have a lot in common - disambiguation is for different meanings of a word. If Shiftchange had looked at Noise he would have realised that its a huge topic for which I created a series of articles, all listed in the 'Branch pages' list, and all (except one) beginning with Noise. It may be because I'm in the UK, but I'm not very familiar with the term 'noise pollution', and favour 'Environmental noise'. I would say that the term environmental noise encompasses Industrial noise(though I think this still warrants its own page) which is not generally regarded as pollution, and air conditioning noise, for which the term pollution doesn't really feel right. Whether to use Environmental noise or Noise (environmental) doesn't matter, as we just redirect from the other name. I prefer Noise (environmental) to emphasise the common feature in the list of branch pages, and this seems to be done a lot on Wikipedia. Note the ease of navigating noise topics, whatever their name, using the navigation offered by the Root page concept. --Lindosland 14:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)