Talk:Plastic Pressure Pipe Systems/2007 Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Editing This Article 2 Copy/paste move, earlier history 3 Opening 4 Definition 5 References 6 Vandal 7 Possible improvements for the future 8 External links 9 whats happening to this article? 10 Clean up 11 Content

Editing This Article

Plastic pressure pipe systems is a very niche industry and there are only a handful of people in the world that understand the industry commercially, technically and scientifically. To my knowledge there are no end to end publications of the industry apart from the ones referenced here that are as comprehensive. There is very little that has been published about this industry.

Additional information has been sourced from manufacturers and distributors websites with their permission. With links to their sites.

Myself, Mike Greig and Dr Tarik Al-shemmeri are in this handful of people and have been in the industry since the 1960s. I am now retired but still consult to the industry.

I'm promoting this article to other people in the industry so that it will have the very best content. I have merely put up the bare bones and I’m trying to encourage others to add to it.

Therefore, please can I encourage you to discuss your edits as some edits have been made without much thought for the intention here and have shown no understanding of the industry or the lack of published material about the industy. Thank you. --Davidacarr 15:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It's very good that information has been sourced, and the article is promising, but Wikipedia does have particular standards for references. The publication details need to be available for the references. We cannot "trade" web site references for help; web site references appear according to their direct relevance. However, if the reference is to publications on web sites we can and should include links. The web sites removed did not seem to meet Wikipedia:External links, especially the link to Staffordshire University, which has no relevance except that one of the authors of a reference works there. Therefore I would argue that all the sites should be removed. However, these are supposed to be consensus decisions, so please feel free to disagree and produce arguments for their inclusion (please reference Wikipedia:External links for reasons for inclusion). Notinasnaid 16:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Copy/paste move, earlier history

Note that this article seems to have been the subject of a copy/paste move, to reverse a rename, [1]. If an article needs to be moved never use copy/paste please, as it breaks the history. The earlier history can be viewed on [2]. Notinasnaid 14:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Opening

Please do not removed the {{Uncategorized}} tag until the problem it identifies has been fixed. I also removed a redundant heading line which has no place in a Wikipedia article: the style of opening is standardised. (Comments?) Notinasnaid 16:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Pleased to see we now have piping and plumbing, and the tag is removed. I took out the nonexistent category "pipe". Notinasnaid 23:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome :-) Bernard S. Jansen 23:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Definition

Let's try and work together on the definition. An article should start with a sentence that includes and defines the subject in a simple way which is accessible to the general reader who has no idea what specialist area is involved. I had put in place "Plastic Pressure Pipe Systems, systems for carrying fluid in plastic pipes, have many uses: some of the most common include piping to transport drinking water, waste water, chemicals, gases, heating and cooling fluids, foodstuffs, ultra-pure liquids and slurries." Evidently, this is factually incorrect since it has been reverted. Please work with me to find a suitable substitute; this is especially important if the subject is not well understood.

I may not have the technical knowledge, but I hope I can bring to bear a little experience of Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and preferred style. (Though I don't claim to be an expert and am not an arbiter). Does that make us a team? Notinasnaid 16:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Definition is simple and can be understood by my 10 year old grandson --Davidacarr 22:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree, with respect. The sentence is in clear English but it does not include a definition: it launches straight into uses without defining what the pipes are. I would like to add "systems for carrying fluid in plastic pipes" as the definition. Is this right or wrong? Notinasnaid 23:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I really would prefer it if you would leave the editorial comments in place until the matter is actually resolved; the intention is to draw the attention of other editors to this discussion. Notinasnaid 23:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Your suggestion wouldn't work as it carries fluid and gases, it's in the article --Davidacarr 23:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC) Oh and it is the standard, generic name in the industry for such systems --Davidacarr 23:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

But gas is a fluid. Being the standard name is good, but since this is not written for the industry, we can't assume the reader will know what we are talking about. Notinasnaid 23:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, since discussion has tried up (which is a pity, because more people discussing brings a better consensus), and acknowleding that "fluid" seems a troublesome word, I am going to add "systems for carrying fluid (gases and liquids) in plastic pipes". More discussion of course welcome. Notinasnaid 10:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

References

I'd like to get the discussion rolling on the references. References need publication data, so interested parties can verify the facts in the article. Without publication details the whole thing unravels. Can we get them? Notinasnaid 00:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Good, we have an ISBN for one. Two to go. Notinasnaid 09:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

References are from the best sources and the article is looking good and the links provide valueble infomation and pictures that cannot be published hear. --Ccknowles 21:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not disputing the quality of the references, just trying to get this article to follow best Wikipedia practice: because it is so nearly a good article. One ISBN still required. I have updated to use Wiki citation templates. I am leaving the two company links since they are relevant and valuable, but I am removing the link to Staffordshire University. There is no justification for linking to the University of the author of a reference in this way. However, I have made a wiki-link in the references directly to the Staffordshire University article, which in turn has the University URL if required. Notinasnaid 22:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

On the references, I feel it may be useful to mention one more thing, since so many contributors to this article are new. Wikipedia expects the references to support everything in the article. So it is very important to make sure that you are not writing additional information from personal expert knowledge. Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion is "verifiability, not truth". Notinasnaid 22:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Leave the link alone, I am going to get a disussion going to prove the link is valid --Davidacarr 23:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for starting the discussion. Please refer to Wikipedia:External links for the reasons for including links. Please also note that I added a "Wiki link" to Staffordshire University into the reference; there can be no justification for having an external link too in this situation. Further discussion welcome, of course. Notinasnaid 23:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Do discussion seems to have taken place, and I don't think the article should be left in limbo forever, so I will delete it again. Obviously if a good rationale is found, it should be added back. Notinasnaid 10:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I see the editor has added it again. I don't feel the link belongs, but at the same time it's not important enough for further efforts. Notinasnaid 03:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandal

66.76.52.131 seems to be a vandal, does anyone know how to bar that ip address, page now restored. Please discuss edits --Davidacarr 22:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This IP had just emerged from a 24-hour block for vandalism, and started again. I have posted a request on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism that a longer block be considerered. Notinasnaid 23:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible improvements for the future

I would like to share some ways in which, in my opinion, further progress could be made towards a good article.

• Article title: should be renamed in sentence case, that is "Plastic pressure pipe systems" (but please, not by a copy/paste move as before).

• Wikilinks: a few more well chosen links to other relevant articles would be good. (These should be to different articles, as further links to the same articles is not Wikipedia style).

• Writing style: the article relies very much on bulleted lists. Wikipedia style is to use prose paragraphs wherever this is reasonable, and I think it could usefully be done in this case.

• Recruitment of more active editors and more effective work towards Wikipedia:Consensus through discussion. It is normal for the discussion of an article to exceed the volume of the article itself many times.

If anyone would like to ask what I mean, please use my talk page. Notinasnaid 03:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that the article is already an excellent article, I personnally like the no nonsence bulleted format as information is not buried but is clear (just like notinasnaid presented above). I know that this article has been promoted in the industry but it is a very small and close knit industry and knowledge is thin on the ground. Personally I don't think the style should be touched anymore. Wikipedia does have certain styles but they are not ridged and within those styles is room for interpretation. What this article does need is more content, which I am working on. --Ccknowles 11:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

External links

The consensus between the editors of this article has been that the external links are valid and they meet the Wikipedia criteria for external links. The Pipestock site contains copyrighted pictures that are not practical to put up plus technical data sheets and tables that cannot be put within the article. The Effast website contains free downloadable cad drawings that cannot be put within the article. The Staffordshire University link is slightly contentious but it is the UKs only centre of excellence for this technology. Please comment --Davidacarr 17:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The links that are within the article are good external links as they provide good information that is too large to be condensed into the article and agree with the points that you make above.--Ccknowles 18:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I Agree with you on the first two, but the descriptions were a problem... I made some changes to clarify a bit more.

The third one I removed as it provided no useful information related to the subject on their site. Does Staffordshire have an article on wikipedia? If so it would certainly be appropriate to add them to a "See Also" type section. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, staffs uni don't have an article to link to, I have looked all over their site but cannot find a related article. I do know they are one of only three centers of excellence in the world for this technology is that not valid? Do you think that info might be useful to people? --Ccknowles 19:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

That kind of information would be better in an article on thier school... you could start one. It's likley notable enough for an article. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

whats happening to this article?

Why has the article become so unstable? Please shed some light on this? --Davedge 20:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Time to shine a light on Plastic Pressure Pipe Systems. Vandalism to the WikiProject Spam talk page drew attention to both the massive talk page deletions here and the inappropriate commercial links on the article page. --A. B. ^(talk) 21:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The links are not in appropriate as the core article is about a product which can only be commercial. The external links are the only source of strategic information about this type of product. I have looked at the links and they provide valuble information about the subject matter, I will therefore re instate if nobody objects with 2 days. --86.134.114.50 11:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I object. So do others. Refer to this discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Time to shine a light on Plastic Pressure Pipe Systems. --A. B. ^(talk) 18:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at the above talk pages and I agree things need to calm down, I have put the article back to how it looked before the spammer got involved so lets now have a sensible discussion before any more edits happen, is that OK with everyone --Ccknowles 09:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Clean up

Removed the see also BSP pipe threadeds no relevance to the article --Ccknowles 08:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Put the article back to how it looked before the maximus spammer got involved. I made an error when saving and just put in the external links, sorry for this I have now corrected it --Ccknowles 08:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Please can we have the discussion on this page as it relates to this article, thanks --Ccknowles 09:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Previous reverts took away some important internal links so these are now back in --Ccknowles 09:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I deleted one of the ELs (with my reasoning in one of the above sections). Do you need any help with restoring information from the history? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I added the missing info this morning and have just added some more internal links.--Ccknowles 19:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Had to clean up a whole bunch of edits that are not related to the article put there by Srahman, they have a possible link to the new ELs that have been added, can other editors please look into this thanks.--85.189.59.168 13:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the info added by Srahman is not applicable to this article as it related to none pressure pipe. --Drpipe 13:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed some of the BSI content as it related to NON PRESSURE PLASTIC PIPE SYSTEMS. --Drpipe 18:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Content

I have just added a new section to the article on safety factors --Ccknowles 08:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Added another category, valves. --Ccknowles 15:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I have added a section to the article on standards and approvals, can anyone else add some of the other European standards? --Drpipe 17:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

added to the content on bsi approvals. --Pipeup 18:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Nposs made changes without any discussion and did not pay any attantion to discussions from previous editors, therefore his edits have been reverted. --Drpipe 15:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I read all of the above discussions and I don't believe my changes conflict with any of the above consensus. My two changes were:

1) To remove the redundant list of "common PPP systems" - this same information is listed in the table of contents immediately below. I mentioned this in my edit summary. It is simply a removal of redundant content.

2) I removed 1 link to http://www.pipestock.com - a general url to a commercial store front. This is not an encyclopedic link. It might contain some information that would be worth deep linking, but a general link to a commercial store in no way adds useful information to the article. Wikipedia is not a directory of links - WP:NOT. I also removed 1 link to http://www.effast.com/ing/prodotti.htm because although it is not immediately apparent how the material in this link supports the article. This link might be worth keeping, but I found no discussion of its merits. I will say, it is a better link than pipestock because it is a deep link to potentially encyclopedic content. Nposs 16:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Nposs for catching the inappropriate content and the city irrigation spammer this morning, cheers mate. --Drpipe 17:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Can someone look at the standards for DIN and other European standards for PVCu Plastic Pressure Pipe Systems as the article is lacking in this area? Make sure the standards relate to pressure pipe thank you. --Pipeup 12:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have just been sent the latest sections of the European standards document relating to PVCu pressure pipes, will try get them sorted this week--Drpipe 15:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)