Talk:Sanitary sewer

Untitled
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class because it uses a sub-category of on the article page.
 * If you agree with this assessment, please remove this message.
 * If you disagree with this assessment, please:
 * 1) Change the above "class=start" to "class=start" or another applicable class per WikiProject Environment/Assessment;
 * 2) Remove the stub template from the article.

Planned edits
Hi All! I am planning to add to this page. Is there anyone who is currently updating this page? Cheers, Zhantair — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhantair (talk • contribs) 03:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have it on my watchlist. What are your plans? There is also a related article called Sewage collection and disposal which I think should be merged into this one and into the one on history (see my comment on talk page there).EvMsmile (talk) 11:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I transfered information from Sewage collection and disposal that seemed suitable to me to this article.--Mll mitch (talk) 10:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree about merger of this article with Sewage collection and disposal. There is widespread confusion about the difference between combined sewers and separate sanitary sewers. Clarity will be enhanced by maintaining separately focused articles on storm sewers, combined sewers, and sanitary sewers separate from the overall history of sewage collection and treatment or disposal options. The subject of sewage treatment is similarly covered by specific articles explaining the differences between primary and secondary treatment, and the various mechanisms to achieve such treatment. Subject overlap can best be covered with hatnotes and main article links. Thewellman (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * To avoid confusion about the difference between combined sewers and separate sanitary sewers, I have distributed condensed versions of the unsourced information transferred from the sewage collection and disposal article into existing sections of this article. Links to focused information about combined sewers are available in the hatnote above the article lead, in the lead description of the distinction between separate and combined sewers, in the main article link above the History section, and at the evolution description within the History section. Thewellman (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

So if the main article about the history of sewers is the one called "combined sewers", should we then take the history section from sewage collection and disposal and merge it to the history section of combined sewer? (probably a lot of the content is the same anyhow) Would that be a good way forward? - I really don't think having the same, or very similar, history description on two pages makes sense because then if we want to improve it, we'd have to improve the same content on two pages... (see also talk page of sewage collection and disposal) EvMsmile (talk) 03:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm unconvinced of the wisdom of merging the history sections -- especially since you prefer to put history at the end of each article. A more useful approach for laymen would be a separate chronologically sequenced article emphasizing the historical development of sewage collection and disposal from drainage ditches and sewage farms through combined sewers with the addition of sewage treatment facilities evolving into separate sanitary sewers to improve treatment efficiency for water recycling. Such an article would include links to focused articles of various types of sewers and treatment or reuse options for those interested in more detail. There would be very little information overlap in a condensed history for each focused article as either an introductory background section describing differences from preceding methods with the motivation for such differences, or (if you prefer) a section at the end of the focused article. Thewellman (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What you're describing here sounds good (and a lot of work, because currently the history secton is not structured like that). However, I would argue that this should rather be on the article history of water supply and sanitation (have you checked out that article?) rather than in an article that has the arbitrary title of "sewage collection and disposal" (treatment not mentioned in the title!). How about we focus our energies with regards to history on the article history of water supply and sanitation, in which case the one one sewage collection and disposal will become obsolete? I really do believe that it is much better to have one strong article that brings all the history together, rather than lots of articles that touch on it briefly and in an incomplete manner. Rather send people across to the main article. - And yes, according to the MOS Sanitation, History is always at the end of the article; we have modelled this on the MOS of Wikiproject Medicine and I think it make sense, because most lay people are probably looking for current stuff first, not for historical information (except of course for articles that deal specifcally with history). EvMsmile (talk) 02:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The background section is weak
I don't like the background section very much. It is actually a mixture of "history" and background. To improve it, I think we should be inserted more references to dates and also make it clear that we're talking here about cities in industrialised countries of the West. The situation of cities in developing countries (to this day!) is totally different - so we're not giving a global view here. Another option would be to split it into a true background sectio and a true history section (the history section should then be at the end of the article and not be a repeat of the history section of combined sewer or history of water supply and sanitation. EvMsmile (talk) 06:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I see no basis for objection to the minor duplication represented by this one-paragraph summary of background information explained in greater detail within other articles. I value additional references, but dates (as opposed to an undated conceptual progression from primitive waste disposal practices to sanitary sewers) may focus on a specific location and be counterproductive to a globalized perspective. I question what differences might be documented in developing countries, or how relevant those differences might be to the benefits of sanitary sewers. It is my perception that developing countries are attempting to follow the example of industrialized western countries because they have similar goals, and I fear removal of the background information for the western precedent may obscure the reasons for separate sewer systems. Thewellman (talk) 06:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * My problem starts with the first sentence "Animal feces were plentiful on city streets while animal-powered transport moved people and goods.". What does "were" refer to? When and where? If you have villages in developing countries that have animal-powered transport, don't they still have now plenty of animal feces on the streets? It shows that the sentence is meant to infer developed countries (hence written in past tense) but without making it clear (this is of course a general bias on Wikipedia). - It continues with this sentence "Indoor plumbing was often drained to combined sewers through the 19th century". Well in developing countries, such indoor plumbing is more likely to be discharged to septic tanks, rather than sewers (except outside of the central business district of the capital city). I think the background section should make it clearer where and why and when separate sewer systems were constructed and what the trend is nowadays, e.g. with an emphasis on local infiltration of rainwater as much as possible.EvMsmile (talk) 07:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have now tried to make things clearer. Feel free to improve further. I think the flow of thought is more logical now. EvMsmile (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The present text seems to obscure the background progression:
 * 1 - draft animals defecate on streets
 * 2 - stinking streets are convenient for disposal of household sanitary waste
 * 3 - build combined sewers allowing excrement to be washed off streets
 * 4 - build indoor plumbing to avoid washing sanitary waste off streets
 * 5 - build sewage treatment plants to avoid smelly rivers during dry weather
 * 6 - build storm drains diverting clean surface runoff to increase wet weather treatment efficiency
 * 7 - build separate sanitary sewers to maximize sewage treatment efficiency
 * Separate sanitary sewers are inefficient duplication unless sewage treatment is a goal. Many developing societies regard waterways as appropriate disposal locations for all manner of waste. Perceived need for sewage treatment tends to be driven by availability of clean water for drinking and surplus water for waste dilution and removal. Water availability may not correlate with use of animal transport. Thewellman (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not convinced that the excreta from the draft animals was the starting point for the development of combined sewers in all or many of the cities. You can also wash that away with open gutters (or manually by sweepers). There were other drivers that gave the push to put all this infrastructure underground... More likely it was more due to the indoor plumbing advent. Do we have more good references that we can quote in this section? EvMsmile (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have separated the background and history sections as suggested earlier. 20th-century cities are cities populated in the 20th century, as opposed to abandoned Inca or Mayan cities, or future cities which may someday be built on what is now sparsely populated land; but I have removed the term to avoid confusingly misplaced modifiers in the last edit. Thewellman (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

And why did you delete this: "Maximising local rainwater infiltration, to reduce surface runoff is one approach taken by city planners to reduce the amount of stormwater entering combined sewer systems, therefore in some cases, negating the need for a separate sewer system." I thought that's an important aspect. I also don't understand this comment of yours "This neglects situations where sanitary waste is either buried in pit latrines or deposited directly into streams by urinating and defecating from bridges". We're talking about indoor plumbing; pit latrines are a completely different cattle of fish as they don't produce any wastewater, only a sludge which has to be deal with differently. EvMsmile (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I deleted the statement in question because of the text I took the liberty of highlighting. This article is about separate sanitary sewers. The statement might be appropriate in the combined sewer article if a reference citation is provided, but there seems no need for duplication in both articles. Thewellman (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)