Talk:Plumbing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Architecture (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article seems more in line with safety of water supply than with information about plumbers. Some relevant research articles are here: http://news.wustl.edu/news/pages/23098.aspx and here: http://www.inspectapedia.com/water/leadwatr.htm. suzeikew (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Pipe Wrench Images[edit]

I am unsure how to add an image but there are plenty of traditional pipe wrenches here: http://www.plumbersurplus.com/ProductList.aspx?Cat=657

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Masterplumbersocal (talkcontribs) 02:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

Use Picture of Pipe Wrench[edit]

I'd rather see a picture of a more traditional Pipe wrench, such as the one shown in that article.69.87.193.156 13:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Mention of Union[edit]

What do folks think of the line "Union plumbers are represented by the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada." It seems to flow poorly and has little to do with an article (especially a stub) on the basics of plumbing. I'm a huge fan of unions, but ok with all for me to delete this? Punkgeek 22:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I just went ahead and removed it.

Union plumbers are represented by the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada.

It's here if someone finds a way of putting it into the article. My main problem with this is that it only applis to North America. A German, Swiss, Australian or British plumber wouldn't belong to that union, for instance. Rosejpalmer 13:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Move material about plumbers to Plumbers article[edit]

I think the sections on Contractors and Specializations would be better incorporated into the article on Plumbers

Also the section on Firestopping (and links to that subject) seems to get into too much detail for a general article about plumbing. (Why not one on pipe supports or corrosion protection or ... add 101 equally detailed aspects of plumbing ... ?) There is an article on Fire_protection.

--John Stumbles 23:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The contractors and specializations section headings tend to diverge from actual plumbing information. Much of the information in the second paragraph of the specialization section could probably be incorporated into the main body of the article as it applies to how plumbing is generally regulated (in the US at least). However, the contractor section is probably not appropriate for inclusion in the general plumber article since it's written for a very specific area/region (at least it isn't how plumbing contracting is handled in areas of Texas or NM that I've worked in).

I think some of the firestopping information (and perhaps several of the other sub-sections) could probably be worked into a general section on important plumbing elements. Since no one has spoken up in favor of keeping the contractor and specialization sections: I'm going to delete them and work some of the information into the main article. --Dragonvpm 06:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Adjacent Trade Work[edit]

It makes sense to mention adjacent trades as they have a direct impact upon the plumbing system and vise versa. Plumbing without firestops violates the code. Firestops that wreck vapour barriers have an impact as well. Where the items being installed by different trades interface, one must co-ordinate. Where this is overlooked, code violations follow, which is self-evident by the decades of ignoring firestops in mechanical penetrations, same as overlooking decent insulation, causing dripping of colder pipes, energy loss, etc. If you don't understand related trades in any building trade you might pick, you simply have no business being in the business. Otherwise, there would also be no purpose in having regular site meetings, which always occur during construction, between consultants and the contractors. It follows that mentioning related trades, as the National MasterFormat sections always do, for that same reason, can do no harm here. --Achim 05:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

History of plumbing[edit]

I'm suprised that there isn't a section here on the history of plumbing. Is there a separate article? If not, I think that historical information should be added here.--Tabun1015 04:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I was rather disappointed when I saw that there was practically no history of plumbing, considering how important that is in out daily life. The steam engine, canals, railroads, and so on, they all have a long history section, but not plumbing. I wonder why. Maybe because people take for granted, or because it doesn't seem as impressive as the other. 193.217.194.39 06:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Green plumbing[edit]

I suggest an article about green plumbing, including specially rainwater tank and water conservation. --Nopetro (talk) 10:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge of material from Tap water article (and possibly other places)[edit]

The Tap water article has accumulated a lot of material that ought to be here in Plumbing, since most users will look for it here and may not think of looking for it there. Relevant material seems to have accumulated in other odd places, rather than here, disappointing first-time readers. Any suggestions of other plumbing-related material that ought to be rounded up and merged to here? -- Reify-tech (talk) 23:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I've also tagged Water pipe for a proposed merger into Plumbing. As noted at the top of this Talk page, Plumbing is currently rated as High-Importance, but C-Class in quality. I agree with both ratings. I think that Plumbing is where most readers will look for this material, but they will be disappointed with what they find here. The Water pipe material, although not of highest quality, would be an improvement here, and is less likely to be found by readers where it is now. For some unknown reason, Tap water#Pipe materials has built up some decent material, but most readers are unlikely to think of looking there for it. More "stranded" or "orphan" material might be found by following the "See also" links, Wikilinks, or just guessing at likely items to Search for.

I've directed discussion from the merge source tags to here, so there's one place all interested editors can discuss this general topic. Any comments? --Reify-tech (talk) 10:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I vote merge. It seems to be rather out of place to have this full section in the tap water article. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
The plumbing material came from a merger of domestic water system back in 2008. Moving most of it on to plumbing makes sense, but some of it might have to go elsewhere. I'm particularly thinking of the copper tubing section which includes refrigeration tubing stuff. It also used to include DWV sizes, but those were deleted because they don't carry tap water - might be good to recover that.--Yannick (talk) 23:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree this plumbing article needs improvement. I have not read the water pipe article thoroughly or the tap water one thoroughly either. My rough sense is these are separate subjects, but if there is material within water pipe or tap water that belongs in plumbing, it should be moved here, but the articles kept separate? I see plumbing as not just the physical arrangement of pipes, but the activity of doing plumbing -- making repairs, fixing leaks, etc. I see the subject of water pipe as more the physical structures. I wonder if combining all three articles might make the article plumbing too large. Overall I do not feel strongly about these views; just hunches; so if people decide otherwise I'll support what they do. My two cents.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)