Talk:Pollution control

Useless article
What is this page about? We have enough coverage about pollution control. Plus that the control technologies are categorized strangely. The Vindictive 19:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with MBeychok, is there an admin to delete this blatant article??? The Vindictive 08:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I see the deletion tag has been changed to cleanup. I still believe this article is useless and poorly organised and therefore I request its deletion. The Vindictive 19:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This is an unneeded and redundant article
Wiki has articles on Pollution, Air pollution, Water pollution and many, many solid waste articles. Wiki also has Category:Pollution, Category:Air pollution, and Category:Water pollution. We don't need another article such as this one.

It is simply a shell with absolutely no content other than some external links to books and websites ... with "cleanup tags" to persuade us to try and write an article on a subject already covered in many, many Wikipedia articles and Wikipedia categories.

Failure to delete this shell of an article is a good example of carrying "anti-deletionism" to extremes. - mbeychok 15:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to merge this article into the Pollution article.
Other than the one short lead-in paragraph, this article is only a collection of Wiki links. It has no external links and no references.

The content of the lead-in paragraph could easily be merged into the Pollution article. The collection of Wiki links could also be merged into the Pollution article's See also section and other sections (where appropriate and relevant). I therefore propose that this article be merged into the existing Pollution article. - mbeychok 22:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with mbeychok, this article is virtually useless, as we have enough coverage about pollution control within all pollution articles (water, air, soil, noise). There is no use to multiply articles on the same subject. The Vindictive 06:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As a WikiProject Environment member myself, I do agree that this article is useless. It's more like a google search engine (or a phone book) where it points out the topics (but that's what a category does and not a wiki page)  OhanaUnited   05:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Try to convince the admin who replaced the delete tag with a cleanup tag. Thanks for sharing the same opinion. The Vindictive 07:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi all, I agree with the above statements and support its merge into the pollution article.--Alex 07:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been asked to comment on this issue, and so I'm studying the pollution articles right now. I plan to write up a response later.  H Padleckas 17:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've (User:H Padleckas) taken a look at the Pollution control article as well as Pollution, Air pollution, Water pollution, and several other categories and articles pertaining to pollution. Yes, the  Pollution control article is a very brief, superficial shell of an article which is a rather short paragraph in length just barely defining or mentioning a few of the most fundamental aspects of pollution control.  However, I don't see anything incorrect in there and what little has been said can be used as a starting point for further expansion.  It is very incomplete and much more can be said about pollution control.  This article will not be very good until it is expanded further.  I think enough can be eventually written on pollution control to expand it into a reasonably fuller article which can stand on its own.  The possibilities on what to do with Pollution control include leaving it to be expanded further by somebody or merging it with the main Pollution article - perhaps best done by inserting a new section called "Pollution control".


 * In the Pollution article, sources and causes, effects, history, recognition (in a general sense), and awareness of pollution are covered, but there is no section on pollution control, sampling or detection methodology. The Pollution article also has a "Regulation and Monitoring" section, but that section mostly covers laws and regulations, not technology for pollution control, sampling, or pollutant analysis.  The "Perspectives" section in Pollution only touches on pollution control in an inadequate sort of way; for example, automobile emissions control is mentioned in one sentence with an internal link but without any discussion.  I don't see where catalytic converters are mentioned in this article.


 * The Air pollution article covers pollutants, sources, effects, air quality standards (again legislation or regulation), atmospheric dispersion modeling, and "Greenhouse effect and ocean acidification". The Air pollution article has a list of "Control devices" including links to Catalytic converter, scrubbers, cyclones, and Flue gas desulfurization, but practically no discussion of them.  There are separate articles on Automobile emissions control, Catalytic converter, and Scrubbers.


 * The Water pollution article covers sources, contaminants, effects, transport and chemical reactions, but regarding pollution control the Water pollution article has only the section "Regulatory Framework" which gives laws and regulations, but does not cover technology for pollution control, sampling, or pollutant analysis. Although wastewater and sewage are mentioned, wastewater treatment is not mentioned in the article.


 * The Pollution, Air pollution, and Water pollution articles do not cover the topic of pollution control very well in the sense that they hardly discuss vehicle emissions control, pollution control equipment such as catalytic converters, exhaust gas recirculation, scrubbers and cyclones used in industry, wastewater treatment, environmental sampling and chemical analysis for pollutants. (By the way, I have not yet found a decent Sample or Sampling article yet in Wikipedia, in terms of taking samples for analysis;  Is there one anywhere?)  The subject of pollutants is covered reasonably well in the Pollution, Air pollution, and Water pollution articles.  The Pollutant article is not very long and not very detailed (although longer than Pollution control); so I think the Pollutant article can be merged with the Pollution article, given a little work.  The Pollution and Air pollution articles are somewhat longer articles.  Pollution is a rather broad topic and much can be written about it.  If the Pollutant article can be expanded into more detail, it would be reasonable to have it stand on its own.


 * My own inclination is to try to limit article size to about 30 kB if possible. The Wikipedia edit mode starts giving warnings about article length at about 32 kB, so 30 kB allows a couple kB more for future small expansions, additional references, language links, and more categories.  Much of the information about pollution control is scattered about Wikipedia in numerous articles such as Automobile emissions control, Catalytic converter, Scrubber, Wastewater treatment, Cyclonic separation, etc.  If the Pollution article were expanded to provide a reasonable coverage of pollution control, I would advocate the insertion of a separate section called "Pollution control" into the Pollution article.  The Pollution control can be turned into a redirect.  Whether this would cause the Pollution article to become too long, I don't know.


 * Theoretically some day in the future, the Pollution control article could be expanded into a fuller article by covering topics such as pollution control equipment and methods such as those listed in the previous paragraph, as well as taking environmental samples and their chemical analysis. Such an article would make a good tie-together article for the previously mentioned links.  To give an example of how a similar short stub of an article has been expanded to a full length article, I will say that previously the article Chemical plant was a 4-sentence stub before I expanded it into a practically full-length article.  When expanded, Chemical plant made a good tie-together article for many links to articles on various aspects of chemical plants, which the casual non-expert reader may have had trouble finding on his own.  I admit I have only limited experience and expertise in the area of pollution control, so I would not be the best person to expand the Pollution control article.  I look upon Wikipedia as being in a state of flux or change while being built - a work in constant progress.  Many articles started out as stubs and have been expanded to full-length articles eventually.  Maybe someday Pollution control will similarly be expanded.  Although Pollution and Pollutant are almost the same topic, Pollution itself and Pollution control are not really the same thing, although they are highly related topics, somewhat like crime and police work.  I slightly prefer to keep the articles separate and let Pollution control develop eventually, but a merge with Pollution would be reasonable too.  H Padleckas 23:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Henry Padleckas, thanks for a very thoughtful and well-explained comment. - mbeychok 21:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)