Talk:Municipal solid waste

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Sanitation Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sanitation, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sanitation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SanitationWikipedia:WikiProject SanitationTemplate:WikiProject Sanitationsanitation articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Environment Start‑class High‑importance High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Properties of MSW was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 22 December 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Municipal solid waste. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Municipal solid waste is not distinct from the general term "waste" and I do not believe they should be merged.--Alex 07:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but see Talk:Waste. --Macrakis 12:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Municipal Waste as a search would more likely be targeting the rock group of the same name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.179.180.79 (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appearantly, Johan Vennik developed a way to to process 96% of the domestic waste, without incorporating incineration. Vennik plans to set up a pilot factory in Breda (the Netherlands).^[1]

Perhaps mention in article

The usage and primary topic of Garbage is under discussion, see talk:garbage (disambiguation) -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Municipal solid waste. 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/20130813042213/http://www.ciwm.co.uk/web/FILES/About_CIWM/100_yrs_London_and_SE_centre.pdf to http://www.ciwm.co.uk/web/FILES/About_CIWM/100_yrs_London_and_SE_centre.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101120233733/http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/mswaste/msw.html to http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/mswaste/msw.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20070927193038/http://www.countryside.wales.gov.uk/fe/master.asp?n1=366&n2=213&n3=896 to http://www.countryside.wales.gov.uk/fe/master.asp?n1=366&n2=213&n3=896
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101120233733/http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/mswaste/msw.html to http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/mswaste/msw.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928085741/http://www.wte.org/userfiles/file/epaletter.pdf to http://www.wte.org/userfiles/file/epaletter.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bank of Waste. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I`m confused..why is this picture here ? The info box appears to be completely irrelevant 2600:1702:2340:9470:AC44:28A1:B377:F8E6 (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]