Talk:Passive fire protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Fire Protection, an attempt to better organize and unify articles relating to fire protection equipment. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

[edit] Overall Scope and Emphasis

  • The entire artticle needs a NPOV re-write.
  • The empahsis on bounding is excessive to that as is applied as industry acccepted practice in the vast majority of commercial and indistrial locations. "Bounding" is not an overall fire protection industry accepted term, nor is it used in the vast majority of fire protection applications. It may be accepted terminology in the the nuclear industry, with which I have little experience, but that is a relatively small part of the overall fire protection world.
  • The Structural Fire Protection section is redundant to other more general fire protection articles.
  • The entire article is excessively wordy, and contains unecessary examples (i.e., "for example", or "for instance").
  • Absolute terms should be reworded. (Example, "All PFP systems, down to the smallest details, are founded upon, and entirely useless without bounding.").
  • The "Checking for proper PFP care by a building owner" section is unecessary.
  • The article should be reorganized into broader, goal oriented catagories. Currently, it reads as a list of overly detailed random "bounding" related issues.

Fireproeng 06:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Passive fire protection is a distinct part and linking this with the other parts is perfectly alright. To do more would become too unwieldy. There is some clean up generally to be done with all fire protection items here and I will endeavour to do this, given time. I have worked in the field most of my life.--Achim 23:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Fire Protection in general is such a vast field, that to combine its three constituent parts, is like combining physics, chemistry, biology, microbiology, computer science, ET CETERA, all into one article called science. How about that then?--Achim 03:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Nobody debated me after several attempts made by myself on why this article should me merged with fire protection. The way it is now, each of the relevant articles refer nicely to one another. So, after receiving no response on the matter, I removed the merge note.--Achim 04:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The material about bounding appears to even a casual reader to be way over the top. It detracts from the authority of the article as a whole. DCDuring 18:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move to edit

Can anyone defend the statement: "All PFP systems, down to the smallest details, are founded upon, and entirely useless without Listing and approval use and compliance." I would argue that PFP is very much useful in retarding fire without bureaucratic measures.JohnGaltJr 00:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that unless your installed configuration matches a certification listing, which is bounding, no inspector will pass it. It is how you can demonstrate due diligence. If you cannot demonstrate that, you have nothing and as a contractor, you don't get paid.--Achim 04:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)