Talk:Environmental noise

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 11 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jwright2371.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2019 and 26 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Madmann16.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

No good idea - see this new article --Fmrauch (talk) 13:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Environmental noise has a special meaning in Europe and should not be merged with noise pollution, even if there are many connections between these words. --Fmrauch (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What is the difference between environmental noise and noise pollution? How exactly is it a special definition? And if the page will be nothing but a definition it should redirect anyway, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Reatlas (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not only a definition, much more important is the implementation of the European Directive in different countries. --Fmrauch (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So then this article isn't about environmental noise it's about noise regulation in Europe! I think this page should be a redirect to noise pollution and the content can be merged into the more aptly termed Noise regulation page. Reatlas  (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No - noise regulation is concerning inside and outside noise, but Environmental noise is only outside of buildings. --Fmrauch (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Well this article isn't about environmental noise still. Why exactly should we keep this page if it doesn't cover what the title suggests? We do not need this page, like you already admitted, noise regulation covers this and more. Reatlas  (talk) 13:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Own article
this article is about environmental noise as it is defined in Europe AND about noise regulation in Europe. It's no good idea to mix this content with other articles, because there are analog differences like Noise mitigation, Noise pollution, Noise regulation etc. --Fmrauch (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a dictionary for definitions and article titles should be relatable to the content contained within. This article is named environmental noise and should be about environmental noise, not environmental noise as is specially defined in Europe and certainly not noise regulation in Europe. There is next to no information in this article about actual environmental noise and this page should redirect to a page that actually has content about such, specifically the much more complete noise pollution. The content currently on this page is completely relating to noise regulation in Europe, and as such should be merged to Noise regulation. Please explain clearly what you mean by "analog differences". I see no reason why this content cannot be merged into a section of Noise regulation. Reatlas  (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Some remarks about systematics and encyclopedia: I don't know, if environmental noise is defined otherwise or if it is common wordwide. But we have words in every language, which can't be translated 1:1. For example in Germany we have different words like Krach, Geräusch, Lärm. Of course, WP is not a dictionary, but if you are looking for a word or a definition, you'll be looking what is written in Wikipedia. In most cases you read WP in your own language. But sometimes it is interesting to read versions in other languages. The problem occurs that there are different systematics in the different languages. Articles which describe German law may have equivalent articles in other languages - especially concerning the law in other European countries. And sometimes it is very important to compare the situations in the different countries. May be that a view from USA differs from a view from UK. I am sorry that we mostly describe the situation in our own country though it would be interesting what people from other countries could contribute. Perhaps you may have a look in the categories? What is better: a long article which summarizes all aspects - or a few articles which describe different definitions and views? What is the main topic? Noise - but how many arcticles are possible? Would you like to summarize all articles concerning noise in only one article? What is the target of each language? Describing the situation in your own country - UK for example? Well, I don't know how to solve these problems. But perhaps this article can be expanded soon so that it will become more clear. By the way - I have similar problems with Limited company - in Germany "Aktiengesellschaft"; the result is that we have articles for different countries, not languages! --House1630 (talk) 11:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I just found under GOOGLE more than 1 million hits! --House1630 (talk) 11:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * There is nothing wrong with having an article relating uniquely to a certain country or regions, in itself. But the issue here is that this article does not appear to have the required notability or content to warrant its own article. Articles like cellular noise and electronic noise are separate because they all have enough content to fill their own pages even though they come under the broad umbrella term of noise. In comparison, this page has been in a stub state for near all of its 10 years of existence, and what content it now has is purely relating to noise regulation in Europe, and is short enough that it could (and I feel should) be merged with noise regulation. With regards to hits, hits alone does not mean a topic should have its own page. For example searching color gets 3.8 billion hits, while searching colour gets 155 million. But on Wikipedia one redirects to the other because they are about the same thing and would only be duplicating unnecessarily which is what this page is doing. Reatlas  (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This is wrong! The article was a stub until 7 years ago and was then merged with Noise pollution - see . At that time, the European definition was not in the focus and there was no reason for an own article. But things changed in the meantime, and I am just going to expand the artice, trying to break the border which is given through the small view of the German version. And what do you suppose to link with the German version de:Umgebungslärm ? --Fmrauch (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * We could link the German page with a European section of Noise regulation or Noise pollution. I don't think we need regional versions of every page on Wikipedia just because a direct translation comes up with a different article name. My issue is that the article title does not match the content that is contained within. This page has a single sentence about actual environmental noise in a global perspective and then even still in the introduction it goes into European environmental noise regulation. The page as it currently exists, and as you hope to expand it, is not about environmental noise but about noise regulation which is why I think the content might be better presented by being merged with noise regulation. This debate has stretched on for almost two weeks with zero progress towards consensus; If you are determined to keep this page then so be it I will argue no further, I have wasted enough of my time. Reatlas  (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Environmental noise. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101123022847/http://ec.europa.eu:80/environment/noise/pdf/com_96_540.pdf to http://ec.europa.eu/environment/noise/pdf/com_96_540.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Environmental noise monitor with weather proof microphone.jpg