Talk:Plastic Pressure Pipe Systems/2007 Archive

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 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 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, |here. If an article needs to be moved never use copy/paste please, as it breaks the history. The earlier history can be viewed on. Notinasnaid 14:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Opening
Please do not removed the 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)

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 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 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)

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. 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. --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)