Talk:Rain gutter

Manufacturer Spin
Much of this article contains Spin (public relations) from articles published by a manufacturer that produces a gutter shielding device and is not objective, poorly written, and mostly inaccurate.Teda13 (talk) 04:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Teda13 (talk) 05:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well why don't you fix it then? You seem to think you know the subject. SilentC (talk) 23:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I do know the subject, but the article needs to be rewritten or at least re-outlined completely.--Teda13 (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC) BTW - "seem to think" has a rude tone I don't care for.  Lets not tear me down because I found a big stinking pile right here.  I'm being constructive by asking for some kind of basic references and research for this article, and made a note of it on the "Wiki Arch: articles needing attention" list last night - - what is it you are doing that's constructive with your sarcasm dude.Teda13 (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's just fairly typical of what I see a lot of here. People dropping in and scattering those fact templates everywhere, making passing remarks about the quality of the article, and then riding off into the sunset. Dude. I think your assessment of the article as "mostly inaccurate" is a bit off-beam and, as someone who did try to clean up/expand it a couple of years ago, a bit offensive. I added the bit about box gutters and you have not only questioned the term but suggested my description of it is incorrect. But, rather than expressing umbrage, I have suggested that since your edit comments seem to indicate that you consider yourself knowledgeable on the subject, you should have a go at improving it yourself. If you want to take offence at the way I expressed myself, I really have no problem with that whatsoever. SilentC (talk) 04:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see any real "spin" here. I did add some neutral references from standard, published reference books and removed the templates.Newell Post (talk) 03:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If you cross the history of the article edits against when I made the comment here - you'll see it was before the problem areas were cut out.  There has been some fairly recent attempts to drag in more spin so please leave the dialog about the problem on the talk page.--Teda13 (talk) 03:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)  You're citing Graphic Standards 10 as backup for the passages about the rain barrel, seamless, and "gutter helmet" style accessories - which pages and passages are you looking at in GS10 as support for those citations?--Teda13 (talk) 04:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)  WP:CITE#HOW  []--Teda13 (talk) 03:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Article violates Wikipedia:Core content policies
Neutral point of view is questionable - Verifiability by reliable sources doesn't extend to the full artilce - Contains original research--Teda13 (talk) 05:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, sounds pretty bad. So what happens now? Is someone going to come along in a few days and delete the whole article? I mean surely you can't tolerate original research and lack of verifiability in an article about rain gutters. Where will it all lead? SilentC (talk) 05:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I find this article a mess, even the title is a touch simplistic. Silent C, you are right with the box gutter description but whoever referenced Francis DK Ching to it is a bit off. Ching says "A gutter built into the slope of a roof above the cornice" which is all balls! His illustration of a box gutter looks nothing like what it is in modern usage.

I was going to try to add something to this page but instead I have started a separate page Box gutter. Maybe another spin off, Fascia gutter is on the cards also. Oh yeah, the broken gutter photo is REALLY enlightening! I have returned to Wikipedia after a reasonable absence and it seems like nothing has changed. Some really misleading information and yes the obvious commercial spin.billbeee (talk) 03:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Need to discuss the history of the rain gutter
This article needs to discuss the history of the rain gutter, which may be of use, because often in historical movies old houses would have gutters in the background and you begin to wonder if the time period has ever invented a sophisticated gutter system. 140.254.227.112 (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Before public water works, cisterns were often built to catch and store rainwater. and the gutter was used to collect that rain water. Today, it's became what the article talk about. Great Grandpa's house didn't have gutters. He had a hand dug well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.104.128 (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I came here because I had a question about what would be proper guttering on a building in an old American West town. No history. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 03:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Be bold
Eight years ago this article was identified as an embarrassment. It was suggested that we should start again then silence. Apologies if I step on a few toes- I am about to to wield an axe. First to go will be chatty language. Then I will take out commercial inserts, and then the bits that ate still un-referenced. I will start from a EU/UK perspective and later it can be globalised. Cherished text will still appear in View History if you wish to retrieve it.

I am taking the terminology from Wickes Good Idea leaflets.ClemRutter (talk) 17:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The article now has structure, links and references.--ClemRutter (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Lacks opposite POV that gutters are not necessary
I could not find in this article a clear statement that gutters are not necessary. My house has architectural shingles with roof overhangs that appear to be sufficient to protect the foundations and walls from rain damage. It has no gutters, and no need for gutter installation, maintenance, or cleaning. Leaves do not build up on my roof, even though there are many nearby deciduous trees. Snow and ice does not damage the gutters because it has no gutters. David Spector (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)