Talk:Pullapart

New Tag Appeared?
This tag has appeared: “In Template:Multiple issues, found parameter #1 as "notability "; ...expected equal-sign: plot=y, or plot=May 2007.” Does anybody know what all this means, can it be corrected? What do I need to do? In much appreciation, AnthonyPA (talk) 10:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fixed. Someone had added a notability tag with the wrong syntax. If you can cite some mentions of PullApart from credible sources, this tag can be deleted.Letsplaydrums (talk) 09:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC}
 * Thanks once again letsplaydrums, whilst there was a lot of media interest (TV, radio and papers) around 2006, this was stored mostly on servers, and are now sadly, gone. However, I can find (preliminary search): http://www.thisissouthdevon.co.uk/news/pulling-apart-pulling/article-223487-detail/article.html and http://www.wasteconnect.co.uk/page.aspx?ID=f5f8c743-6ea3-410b-be75-90e9bc4492b2. And, the Green Organisation's “Silver, Green Apple Award” (photo of award is available). There are also taped audio interviews by the BBC, and many links, to PullApart from professional organisations and people who continue their support. Including: Teignbridge District Council: http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=2783. PullApart is authorised to use their coat of arms – a rare honour (considering PullApart's local contention). And, Dr.R.C.Thompson, University of Plymouth, a world renown plastics in our oceans specialist. PullApart also continues to make contributions to appropriate websites: http://www.edie.net/forum/post.asp?thread=570. Also, the number of people visiting PullApart, globally, continues to increase. Can any of this be distilled into what's required? Regards,AnthonyPA (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Anthony. The thisissouthdevon.co.uk link is perfectly valid. Also, the references don't need to be to online sources - they only need to be verifiable. If you can refer to newspaper coverage for example, by date, you don't then need to also provide an online link if none exists. If somebody really wanted to check it's correct, they can go to a library and find the microfiche!  The only thing I would say is that contributions by Pullapart to other websites and blogs probably wouldn't be valid, as they're essentially self-published. It has to be a reliable third party referring to them. Letsplaydrums (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you letsplaydrums, great information as per usual. Its something that many people are just beginning to realise is that the World Wide Web isn't like a library - storing information for decades, servers/storage devices eventually get replaced/deleted, and in my humble experience, information/pages only lasts for about 5 years. Thank goodness for Wikipedia! AnthonyPA (talk) 23:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your helpful inclusion Rlsheehan I've grafted on PullApart's ethos to create clear water between it and other scoring systems, regards AnthonyPA (talk) 10:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have clarified this discussion. Rlsheehan (talk) 17:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Further reading section
This is the Further reading section that I removed from the article. It is far too long for the article but it has got some refs that can be used elsewhere. I also stripped out the excessive number of portals, footer and sidebar templates and did a lot of other fixes. Needs more work. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree that the reading list is excessive. Pkgx (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: What a heavy hand!
Firstly, where was the discussion before such a radical edit Alan Liefting, you really don't deserve being taken seriously. Next, by the removal of the information boxes, you have taken away article interest, value and information. PullApart is all about packaging for kerbside recycling and, kerbside recycling for packaging, consumer consideration and education. Two of the info boxes are about Waste Hierarchy and the 3Rs (principle foundation stones for all recycling), and the other two are about the fundamental principles on which PullApart is uniquely built? Whilst PullApart is local, it is applicable to local people – WORLDWIDE. Please, now view the page's 90 day viewing statistics and confirm the downward trend since your effort!

Besides your summary deletions, the addition of Recycling in the United Kingdom and Waste collection in Categories is helpful. A consolidation of Further Reading resources, and the rearrangement of the page's appearance is probably overdue, if anybody can constructively help? AnthonyPA (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * A heavy hand was needed. "You gotta be cruel to be kind". Put it in context. It is a minor country-specific recycling classification system and you are trying to turn the article into a recycling textbook!! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is no place for cruelty, even a clichéd one! And yes, PullApart is small however, it classifies for the biggest consumer question relevant to this area, and that is: Can the packaging that you buy be easily and fully kerbside recycled, in your home? I believe that no other classification system in the world centres purely on this ultimate, acid test.
 * Am I “trying” to do anything? Well, yes - make the page interesting and informative.
 * In the spirit of the kindness you suggested, and not wishing to escalate this further - is there any common ground, a compromise to be gained between our Points Of View? AnthonyPA (talk) 10:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * In view of your no response, I'll assume that you are compliant with my compromise offer and that this discussion has now ended. I'll activate a reversion #2, and will do an edit, as outlined above, shortly. AnthonyPA (talk) 10:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "Wikipedia is no place for cruelty, even a clichéd one!" Agreed. I have tagged it for cleanup. It obviously needs a wider set of views. Also, my lack of response was because I was absent from WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)