Talk:Rain garden

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

looks like a copyvio. but google doesnt bring anything up. needs cleanup (copyproofing at least). Jackk 14:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

nvm found the copyvio. speedied. Jackk 14:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I am the author and holder the copyright of the article on Rain Gardens on Sky-bolt.com. I am providing it to Wikipedia as a public service. Ginny Stibolt

Point is, article is not written like an encyclopedic article. Rain gardens themselves are a real thing that wikipedia should have an article on, so I don't think this ought to be deleted as much as re-written and sourced. Lotusduck 01:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the leading sentence, referencing a date of 1890, is incorrect and should say 1990 (http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/info/NewsNotes/issue42/urbrnf.html). Is this a mistake, or does someone have a reference to back up the date of 1890? Eaglesight 18:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I have not received a response, so in my edit of the article I have treated this as a mistake. I still welcome correction if I am missing the information needed to back this up. Eaglesight 04:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glad to see this article is still here.

and that related sustainable development, and LID links keep growing. Yes, Eaglesight 1890 was a mistake. Thank you.

I intend to dig through my notes and writings --targeted toward DIY homeowners, not encyclopedia-- from which I hurriedly pasted, stitched together, and trimmed what I felt the general public should know ASAP. I could then greatly improve citations of what I originally posted, even if I must cite my own published work. That must wait until I complete my Masters, the most important publication for me, and again secure a stable income:)

Some phrases used were found identical among multiple sources. I was fairly sure my original posts had no copyright infringement, other than failing to cite all sources. I find consensus among those responsible for promoting and developing rain garden technology that their intent and desire is that it spread to the public unrestricted. If somebody manages to copyright much of this technology, to make it propriety, the intent of the technology will be subverted. Achieving IBI scores such as preserving an urban (>20% impervious surface) trout stream --if possible-- would likely require broad implementation of green roofs, porous pavers, rain gardens, rain harvesting, and buffer strips to hydrologically insulate stream base flow from storm pulses. Innovators I've met are quite confident that general public knowledge of this technology only increases demand for their growing expertise.

I saw wiki as a great way to spread knowledge, particularly of technologies that likely develop as folk knowledge, reinvented by necessity and often overlooked by written history. I was/am fairly sure my original posts had no copyright infringement, other than the failing to sight all sources.

I hope others help make this article less region specific. The underlying concepts are universal, and may be as old as the hanging gardens of Babylon. I recall originally seeing the term rain garden used to describe a xeriscape practice of using depressions to provide certain crops more soil moisture than generally available in the surrounding landscape. A very different application, and fascinating anthropology, but beyond my expertise. Without verifying a reference I can't assert such an etymology here.

I hope to convince people like Rusty Schmidt and firms such as BARR, AES, and EOR to post pictures of their own beautiful rain garden designs here rather than attempt to correctly assign credit myself. I also hope someone from Price Georges posts a picture of the original bioretention cells for which the rain garden term was deployed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianAsh (talk • contribs) 07:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History section

The latter 2/3rds of the History section need to be rewritten so it makes sense to someone outside of the water detention industry. It reads like a white paper, which in itself isn't a problem - the problem is that it reads like a company-provided white paper, the kind used in sales. —Rob (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)