Jump to content

Talk:Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Chaetodipus (talk | contribs) at 05:28, 30 June 2013 (→‎Do we need two articles?: closing discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

To do list

In the spirit of johntindale's earlier efforts, I've added a to do template to the page. Jminthorne (talk) 23:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone disagrees with the items I have added to the to-do list, please strike them through and open a discussion section so I know my suggestions do not reflect consensus. Thanks! Jminthorne (talk) 02:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • n.b. I've removed the list, which had no longer had active items. Feel free to restore it as necessary. --BDD (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Header Tags

I removed the unreferenced tag since this article clearly has references. However, we also need more citations, so I added an article issues tag with some of the comments I've raised here. Jminthorne (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What About Global Climate Control?

I typed in Climate Control thinking about the global climate and wanting to know what scientists have figured out and what measures are being taken to develop human control of the Earth's climate and it redirected here. Is there an article that covers what I was looking for? If yes then there should be a disambiguation page.68.84.184.56 (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try Climate change mitigation. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need two articles?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was no consensus. Closing after a month of no discussion. —Mikemoral♪♫ 05:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need two articles - HVAC and Air conditioning? Biscuittin (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support (Conditionally) — The proposed merger makes sense logically, but is going to be a lot of work, and should not be initiated without a commitment and a clear plan to do it properly. The combined material is likely to be quite lengthy, even after trimming duplication of content. Careful reorganization is needed to avoid losing useful material. Some sections, such as "History" probably should be spun off as separate articles. I support a merger, only on condition that a clear plan for reorganization is discussed and agreed upon in advance. Reify-tech (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see that both a merger and a renaming have been proposed, causing some confusion. I think the renaming is relatively easy and non-controversial, and support doing it as proposed. Reify-tech (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. HVAC uses heaters and air conditioning to accomplish a task, but HVAC need not be an all-encompassing article. Both articles are reasonably sized. Air conditioning should be about the refrigeration aspects (and perhaps humidity control). There's an air conditioner in my car (and a heater and some ducts), but I don't consider that application to be HVAC. HVAC to me is peculiar to buildings, but even then I don't consider a room air conditioner that gets crammed in a window to be HVAC. HVAC engineers may use furnaces, steam, heaters, chillers, and condensers, but they use them more as building blocks. Let there be separate articles about those blocks that can explain their history and technology. Glrx (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't merge - do you folks know what a sub-category is? HVAC is the broad category, A/C is a subcategory. HVAC includes heating, A/C never does. Air conditioning as an article should be limited to cooling systems only, while HVAC would cover the whole thing. You're proposal is kinda like merging California into United States. Ego White Tray (talk) 17:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge as discussed above, these are different topics. Cleanup of the organization and delineation between the two is both needed and welcomed, though. VQuakr (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HVAC → Heating, ventilation and air conditioning – Per WP:TITLEFORMAT. --Relisted. Red Slash 17:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC) Beagel (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several below have commented that HVAC is not well known outside the industry, but that misses a few of points.
HVAC strikes me as more than the sum of its parts. In the section above, HVAC isn't so much the individual parts but putting the pieces together into a whole system. The spelled out name misleads. The article's lead is overlong, but it primarily addresses buildings, and it states that HVAC roles involve "operation and maintenance, system design and construction, equipment manufacturing and sales".
A reader is going to look up HVAC (or the spelled out version) because he's been exposed to the industry. The average reader isn't going to think of "ventilation" when wondering about how his office building is heated or air conditioned. At work, if one is exposed to even just a little of the building's physical plant, then he is going to hear or see HVAC. I'll grant you that a normal reader, when confronted with a bare HVAC link, would have to click it to understand it; a spelled out link might be more informative, but even hat notes have spelled out descriptions. (NATO doesn't give the naive a clue, either.)
Using the spelled out title would be adopting a name seldom used within the industry and seldom used without.
Google hits don't mean a damn thing, but here are the wet spaghetti counts: "Heating ventilation and air conditioning" gets 2M hits; "HVAC" 91M hits; "North Atlantic Treaty Organization" 3M hits; "NATO" 191M hits.
Glrx (talk) 18:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: HVAC is the most common name. -Zanhe (talk) 08:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree that HVAC is well known in the industry; however, I disagree that the term is well known outside of the industry. However, we are writing articles for common readers not for experts knowing technical jargon. I have some doubts if an average reader of Wikipedia knows the term and therefore the NATO example is not valid here. Beagel (talk) 12:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:JARGON, and per the "spell out acronyms whenever possible" consensus. WP:OTHERSTUFF comparison to NATO doesn't work as this is not nearly as widely known as NATO. - The Bushranger One ping only 14:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it's almost always called HVAC. Hot Stop 18:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • An alternative: There is redirect page from "Heating, ventilation and air conditioning" to here, so I think the common name HVAC for the article is fine. However, I think it would be best to this shorter, very general article that references main articles for each of the three subtopics. That way the "Air conditioning" article is OK. However, on the heating end of things it is presently messy. "Space heating" is a redirect to "Space heater," which is about small electric heaters. "Ventilation" is a diambiguation page, and could include a redirect to a new main article, "Ventilation (HVAC)". (At present there is only a See Also this HVAC article from there.) There also are many space heating related articles concerning for example solar heat, passive solar heat, district heating, district cooling, free cooling, etc. It should be possible to pull all this heating, cooling and ventilating stuff stuff together here in a generalized but comprehensive guide to the full extent of these wide-ranging topics. Coastwise (talk) 01:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – though widely used, the acronym HVAC is still not understood or known to a majority of people who have never dealt with such things; spelling it out makes the title meaningful. Though I'd make it Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning with the Oxford comma. Dicklyon (talk) 06:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – HVAC is widely-recognized jargon within the industry, but is not as widely known to the general readership Wikipedia is supposed to address. WP:NAMINGCRITERIA says that "The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists". HVAC should be defined as a redirect to the main article, "Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning". Also, I support the Oxford comma here, for clarity. Note that we shouldn't insist on using the fully spelled-out name instead of HVAC wherever it appears, since the acronym is much less unwieldy. For example, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is the main article, but the acronym MIT is freely used once it has been introduced as an alternative name.
Also, the proposal by User:Coastwise has a lot of merit, and would bring badly-needed structure to the bunch of poorly-coordinated articles loosely clustered around HVAC topics. This would be a bit of work, but would result in a great improvement to the coverage and usefulness of these subjects. Perhaps somebody could organize this proposal into a Wikipedia project? Reify-tech (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am undecided on this one. HVAC is my industry so I might have a skewed view, but laypeople I know still are familiar with this acronym. As such I think it is more like NATO or USB than the ambiguous acronyms targeted by WP:TITLEFORMAT. I do not know, however, if HVAC is an adequately global word. Are English speaking, non-North American people equally likely to be familiar with this term? VQuakr (talk) 17:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is the common term in use. While 'Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning' can also be used, I suspect that it just as foreign and confusing to the average person. As pointed out above the redirect here works and I see no reason to change. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. To have a title that everybody can understand. Lientinge (talk) 06:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Heating,_ventilation,_and_air_conditioning&oldid=562205797"