Talk:Rainwater tank

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal	This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

An entry from Rainwater tank appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 7 July 2006.

1 Cistern
2 Desluging?
3 Vinmax's changes
4 Anonymous edits
5 Merge
6 Move

[edit] Cistern

This article should show a comparison/contrast with a cistern. I don't understand the relationship. Thanks! --Royalbroil 20:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Desluging?

Resolved. —Pengo 23:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The final sentence of the article states:

Maintenance includes desluging, checking roofs and gutters for vegetation and debris, maintaining screens around the tank, and occasionally removing sediment by draining and cleaning the tank.

What is "desluging"? Is it the process of removing slugs (deslugging?) or sludge (desludging?)? --Kralizec! (talk) 23:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops! Should be desludging. (fixed) —Pengo 02:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vinmax's changes

I've reverted a bunch of edits by Vinmax. The edits had some useful content, but make too much of a mess of the article, and also makes the tone of the article non-encyclopedic: telling the reader what to do (rather than being a summary of what others have said). If you'd like to see his version, to pick out any useful changes (and there are definitely some), see here: Vinmax diff —Pengo 02:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Pengo, the term encyclopedic as in referring to an encyclopedia, your suggestion begs me to ask if you have ever READ one, as a book. There are many articles in encyclopedias that suggest (not tell) to a reader specific methods for accomplishing a goal. I do not discourage an intelligent editorial of my work, (I'm terrible at spelling) but do think that your superior tone and reaction to my efforts is a bit facist.

As you know, you may send me an email, questioning my work. Vinmax

I wrote something here and in your because I believe you can (and have) given a (somewhat) positive contribution, not to say I'm better than you. If I wanted to be "facist" i would have just reverted your changes without explanation, and not have left you a note about it. Honestly it's not worth the shitfight. —Pengo 14:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I apoligize, no shitfight please...I thought you were removing my last update... Drinking water is the most critical part of the human diet, as such my soap box may get a little tall, my concern is for the health and well being of humanity. What is a better investment that the quality of the water we drink? Sorry for the negative retort. Vinmax

Does specifing what the roof material is made of, not constitute telling the reader what to do? [[User talk:Vinmax] 13Feb2007 (FYI?)

The information that was originally in the article has come from the various sources listed at the end of the article. Whatever you want to put in there, please give a reference for each statement, especially where it contradicts what was already in the article. For example, why is the assumption that rainwater is generally fit to drink if it smells, tastes and looks fine dangerous? Who says ? You and your filtering company? You cannot be constructive with this article. Leave it alone or you will be blocked from editing it. —Pengo 13:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted your changes again because you have deleted referenced material in favour of your own web site. —Pengo 22:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC) (I've put back some of the changes now, including your older ones... without deleting referenced material or references; and without turning the article into a list of badly numbered bullet points. —Pengo 23:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Anonymous edits

IP 58.165.200.173 added a large section [1], which I've trimmed down greatly because of its empty rhetoric and meaningless prose such as:

Importantly though, options such as seawater desalination emerge as a superior option over consumption of rainwater tank water, when the environmental, economic and social costs are taken into account. Often, arguments in favour of rainwater tanks appear to be ideologically driven, but not justified by economic or environmental analysis.

That's great to say, but there's nothing to back it up such as, say, references, or even any hint as to what the actual arguments in question are. Please include referenced material when making such bold claims in future, and not empty rhetoric. —Pengo 23:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately, we all believe strongly in being bold and friendly, so the newbies feel they're allowed to add things they think is important - even if it isn't - on the off-chance it is. :) Leviel 09:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

I merged rain barrels into this article, hope I took out most of the repetitive stuff without leaving out anything important. If I did, I'm sorry, and please feel free to change it. (Oh, and I accidentally forgot to deselect "minor edit", which is what I usually do, but I tried to indicate that with the cleanup.) -- Leviel 09:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move

I suggest transforming this page to "water harvester", hereby including information from the water harvesting-article (eg greywater treatment-information). Part of the present article may be merged into water tank and/or storage tank. Look into it. KVDP (talk) 14:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest starting a new water harvesting article without moving this one. "Water harvester" doesn't seem to be a very common term (2000 google hits, vs 95,400 for "rainwater tank" plus more for "rain water tank"). Also it seems a bit ambiguous, referring to devices that suck water out of the air or are divert storm water.

Besides that, I don't see the need to broaden or change the scope of the article, as it's already a reasonably sized article on a well defined topic. Instead rainwater tanks may be mentioned in water harvesting or water conservation (or the other articles you mention) in summary style, or vice versa -- mention those topics within this article.

Rainwater tanks are seldom used to store grey water, so the overlap isn't great. Nevertheless there may be room to start a new summary style article on water harvesting that includes rainwater, greywater, stormwater, seawater, air moisture, etc, without cannibalizing any existing articles. —Pengo 06:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)