Talk:Plastic pressure pipe systems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Plastic pressure pipe systems article.
Article policies
Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion.
Please see prior discussions before considering re-nomination:
Archive
Archives
  1. 2007 Archive


Contents

[edit] 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.

Therefore, please can we 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. --Drpipe 14:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible improvements for the future

Please add your comments:

This seems to be added in Feb 2007 but has never been used. Please share your thoughts: --Grumpyrob 21:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

The consensus between the editors of this article has been that the external links are valid and they meet the Wikipedia criteria for external links. The Pipestock site contains copyrighted pictures that are not practical to put up plus technical data sheets and tables that cannot be put within the article. The Effast website contains free downloadable cad drawings that cannot be put within the article.

I Agree with you on the first two, but the descriptions were a problem... I made some changes to clarify a bit more.
The third one I removed as it provided no useful information related to the subject on their site. Does Staffordshire have an article on wikipedia? If so it would certainly be appropriate to add them to a "See Also" type section. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up

Please add your comments after any edits:

I see that you have archived off the old discussion which I think is good, my only comment would be how do we divied up the archive content over time? I also like the fact that you have left some edit headings for people to post under. --Pipeup 14:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the first line intro of the article relating to the standards that the products are based upon. They have been changed to the new EN standards. --Drpipe 10:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverted a change which was vandalisim --Drpipe 17:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverted vadalisim by Planetoml --Pipeup 15:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverted spam from 81.159.9.207 EL. --Drpipe 15:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Reverted Junker 81 edits, no discussion with other editors of the article, previous edits on other sites suggest that he/she is a spammer --Pipeup 16:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Content

Please add your comments after any edits:

Minor content addition to the Pipes section--Pipeup 15:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Radiojon has removed all the discussion from the archive, not sure how to get in back. --Grumpyrob 14:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Added some detail on WRAS/Wrc and an IL to WRc plus one back to Plastic pressure pipe systems. --Grumpyrob 14:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have edited this article so that it reads like a Wiki entry and not like a company catalogue. n its previous form, it was qute indgestible! Peterlewis 16:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Editors so much of this article has been edited by peterlewis without any discussion, plus the comment above seems a bit arrogant. I am therefore going to revert until a consensus is reached. Peter Lewis you are most welcome to take part in this discussion. Some of the edits are irrelevent and are not related to EN 1452 : 2000 plastic pressure pipe systems, please comment. --Pipeup 22:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

To add to my comments already made, this is a poor article as it stands in reverted form. I work as a plastic pipe consultant, and it reads like a company catalogue, not a Wiki article. There were few links to materials or to mechanics, and it (is) or was extremely repetitive. I have seen many company catalogues by the way! The format was very poor which much wasted space: you can say as much in a much smaller space. Even some of the plastc descriptors are wrong, like PVC-U with no link to uPVC. What use is that to potential users? Peterlewis 23:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Peter, you may have some valid points, however you changed so much of the article without discussing your edits wider with the other editors and reaching a consensus. You could have made some suggestions on the discussion page that would have been less contentious. I also note from you own page that you have already been blocked for not being civil to other editors. Wikipedia is all about reaching a consensus between editors not about getting one's own way. --Grumpyrob 08:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I apologise for the drastic edit, but it seems to me that the article will be of little use to browsers in its current form. Someone should try to make big improvements, for the sake of Wiki's reputation! It looks as if the article was hacked from a company catalogue, and is very repetitive: is that a good use of Wikipedia space? There is also much data missing such as the distrous reputation of many plastic pipe systems in the USA (failure of PB and acetal fittings in Texas and most states in the 1990's) Peterlewis 10:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
What are you apologising for Peterlewis?. See Wikipedia:Be bold; also, could some of our self appointed experts please read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Aatomic1 20:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

There are no self appointed experts, please keep it civil. Like all Wikipedia guidelines everything is based upon consensus from the editors working together. PB and acetal fittings in Texas are not relevant to an article that this based upon EN and BS standards. This is a very small industry there is not much reference able information, therefore the prime and valid source for information is from manufacturers. --Drpipe 11:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that the opening section of the article is written like a advertisement, this testified by the fact that less than one sentence was edited. Therefore it is not appropriate to keep the advert banner. --Drpipe 11:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I note your last edit. Please peruse http://www.bsonline.bsi-global.com/search/results/1. (Place BS EN 1452- in search Box if needed). Aatomic1 12:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Your link did not work. PB is not an industrial plastic pressure pipe system, it is domestic, there are other plumbing articles more appropriate. --Drpipe 13:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drastic Edit

Thanks for some support for an extended edit and update of this article. Contrary to what Drpipe says, there is much info available on the topic elsewhere, and could usefully be incorporated. PB pipe is well used n Europe even after the chaos in the USA and Canada. But potential users should be aware of some of the problems using plastic pressure pipe. I am quite willing to help with this article, but am not going to proceed if my efforts are to be deleted. Peterlewis 12:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Peter, this article is all about Industrial plastic pressure pipe systems PB is not for industrial use. --Drpipe 13:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen, this article has been stable and had lots of goods additions and edits, I would encourage you not to start trying to force things but try and gain a consensus. Remember, not everyone may agree with you. --Drpipe 13:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

There are many problems with this article. For instance, this sentence from the introduction violates WP:NPOV: "Plastic pressure pipe systems have many advantages to offer to the designer, installer and end user of pipe systems; they are light weight, easier to install than metal piping systems, faster to install as well as being more cost effective than metal piping systems. They are used for both above and below ground applications. A well installed and well maintained Plastic Pressure Pipe System could have a life cycle of up to 50 years." Phrases like "many advantages to offer" are not encyclopedic - they present a point of view. The following points (with the expception of the light weight nature of the pipes) are all opinions rather than well-referenced facts about the ppps. Further more, the "most common" applications listed in the opening section are immediately repeated in the table of contents making it both inppropriately detailed and repetitious. Consensus requires the support of several editors. One editor repatedly reverting useful edits by other editors does not equal consensus. Nposs 14:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of this, it clear states in reference able sources that plastic pressure pipes do have more advantages. WP:NPOV supports this view. Furthermore, plastic is cheaper, lighter and easier to install. This a widely and undisputed viewpoint. --Drpipe 14:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

What sources? The entire opening paragraph is completely unreferenced. Please provide some references to support this point of view (not including literature/websites/publications by the PPPS industry). Nposs 14:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Now it's fixed...

Work on it from here. I've taken out everything that sounded like an ad, and that material was likely taken verbatim from one or more of those books (meaning COPYVIO). Good luck! MSJapan 21:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow this has been cut up bad, what's been going on, since I went on holiday? There is much vital information that has been removed from the encyclopedic content of this article. Is anyone interested in good content and going to add anything as apposed to just cut cutting? --Grumpyrob 20:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I'd love to know how an article sourced from installation manuals is encyclopedic, especially when it seems to have been cut and pasted directly. There was very little of encyclopedic value in here, and frankly still is. "Encyclopedic value" does not mean "go here and let us help you choose your pipe system"; Wikipedia is not a guide. All this article should have is what a pipe system is, and what it can be made out of - everything else is outside the scope of what WP is for. You want the specifics on what's what, you ask a dealer or contractor. Period. MSJapan 20:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

No I'm sorry, I'm afraid you are wrong. When I look in any written encyclopedia it contains, examples, assumptions and context. Leaving the article as it is leaves the reader confused about how plastic pressure pipes systems can be used, in what industries and and provides no material useful benefit for their research. There will always be a conflict between encyclopedic content GUIDELINES and products which are produced for commercial purposes and therefore the best information is usually generated by them, especially if it comes from their technical manuals. They would not want to be wrong, as failiure would results in litigation. The article is about a commercial product there is bound to be a commercial element to the article. ISBN references are quoted, rather than throwing rocks from afar, what content are you going to add to the artical. DO you have any subject knowledge, why don't you help out to try and turn this article around? Or do you feel that you own this article? In short how are you going to help? --Grumpyrob 21:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Your assumption is that Wikipedia is acceptable as a source for professional advice; it isn't. If you cannot write the article such that it doesn't copy verbatim from manuals, and doesn't read like an advertisement, then maybe it simply has no encyclopedic value. It's also not about a commercial product, per se, it's about sticking pipes together to do something. By your definition, bread is a commercial product, yet the article doesn't talk about the value of white over wheat bread, or Wonder vs. Pepperidge Farm. This is commercial only because you want to use it as a commercial resource.
If that's not the case, then, consider this: why can't the information here go into the various articles on PVC, etc., in an application of materials section? What they're claimed suitable for here has nothing to do with whether it's a pipe or not; it is a simple function of the properties of the material, not the shape it is in. MSJapan 22:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

What are your prepared to do to make this article better? Consensus please who is prepared to add content? --Grumpyrob 07:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving the article forward

Consensus seems to have gone out of the window, lets start by positivly moving the article forward. The article could not be left in a cut up state, so I have reverted. Please add comments, suggestions and ideas below. --Grumpyrob 21:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

...and I've reverted. Please take some time to read WP:OWN as well as WP:3RR... which you've already broken.--Isotope23 talk 14:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
...I should also add that the version you are reverting too has a non-neutral point of view and lacks any reliable 3rd party sources for the claims it makes. It's simply not acceptable as an encyclopedia article.--Isotope23 talk 14:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

I've protected this page due to sockpuppets continuing to revert the article. I fully protected it, but if someone wants a drop to semi, just leave a message on my user takpage.--Isotope23 talk 14:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Now that the socks have been cleared up....

Does anyone believe this article has any encyclopedic merit whatsoever, or could the info be placed elsewhere? I'm personally very skeptical of this article, so if no one wants to work on this, it can certainly be AfDed. MSJapan 15:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No opinion, but I'll semi this since the socks have all been put in the wash.--Isotope23 talk 15:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
The article has no merit at the moment, but could be drastically edited to something worthwhile. I would delete lists of pipe lengths, fittings, and add refs and critical comments (eg problems with plastic pipes) Peterlewis 16:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
This article was recreated as a POV fork, and while checking the sources after the AfD, the three refs that are listed here don't exist. The Pipestock book is the manual that the company Pipestock publishes for its installers; it's not a publically available book; Greig's book is a PDF that he did not write (he was part of a team that wrote, again, an installation manual), and Al-Shammeri's book doesn't exist as far as I can tell. Furthermore, 2 out of the other three books are very expensive, and the Chasis book dates from 1988, so I doubt that any of them were referenced in actuality. The article is therefore unsourced, and unless someone can do something with it, I'm going to AfD it. MSJapan 02:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)