Talk:Solar-powered desalination unit

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 12:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Solar Powered Desalination Unit → Solar powered desalination unit – This is a common noun phrase not a proper name so it should be written in sentence case. Joja lozzo  19:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Speedy move per WP:TITLE. Beagel (talk) 08:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:
 * 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.

"produce portable water"
Does this system produce portable water (ie. this system is transportable, or it makes bottled water), or does it produce potable water (ie. the water output of this system is drinkable) ? 70.49.127.65 (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * May we assume this question is facetious? If so, why not just fix it? Joja  lozzo  20:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

ROSI
The Australian "Reverse Osmosis Solar Installation" should be split off into a different article, since it is a specific instance of the "Solar Powered Desalination Unit" generic topic, and leaves this article unbalanced without counterbalancing examples with large textual sections. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 20:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Beagel (talk) 08:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I agree that this article is unbalanced but splitting out ROSI will just give us two stubs. I rather see us add content to balance this article. Joja  lozzo  13:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Jojalozzo, I think this article would be better in the long run if left as is. Op47 (talk) 11:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)