This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change 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.
Comments requested on merging "air cooling" process descriptions from multiple Wikipedia articles
Right there are multiple articles which talk about the process of air cooling. This looks to me like forks of the same content, and I propose to merge it to one place. Can anyone else comment on whether this is the same concept, and if so, suggest the one place where this information should be?
All of these are applications of a heat cycle as applied to air and some other heat transfer fluid (in a heat pump, other air; in a refrigerator and AC, a coolant dumping to outside). I'm not entirely sure that means they should be in the same location, since there are going to be some particulars based on the application. --Izno (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with what Izno says. It is not clear what should or would be done. • • • Peter (Southwood)(talk): 10:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Pbsouthwood I am claiming that the four articles linked above are all forks of one concept. I am not sure what the concept is called - maybe heat cycle - but these four articles have some basic science concept in common and are each describing it in their own way. Instead of talking about it in multiple places, I propose to greatly cut the linked sections of all of these articles, and instead direct all scientific explanation of the fundamental concept to one place. Parts of the explanation which are specific to each article can stay, but the generalities need to only be discussed in one place. You are correct - I have not made clear what exactly I will do, but since these articles are very popular and get about 150,000 views per month, I thought that I would post here before making big changes to multiple popular articles. After I make a move, I will seek other feedback. As an example of what I will do, see Talk:Phosphates_in_detergent. This is not quite the same situation, but in that case, I started a new article by combining "phosphates in detergent" content spread over 4 articles into one article. I felt that the same conversation was happening independently in different places when actually the content should have been in one article with other articles referring to the central place. I do not need any particular review now, and I will describe what I do as I go forward, but for now I wanted to give notice that I was planning relatively big changes to several related articles. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Totally different article scopes, even if there is an underlying principle in common. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't say completely different scopes, there is overlap, but maybe not enough to split common material out from all of the listed articles and reduce them by enough to be worth the effort. • • • Peter (Southwood)(talk): 17:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I think there is value in presenting the application of the science behind the air conditioner, that is, relating the scientific principles to the working system, describing how specifically an air conditioner system works applying the refrigeration cycle. I find that the "Refrigeration Cycle" section has a lot of potential. Sadly its all tangled up with confusing references to the cooling system of a car motor (??).Danielixto (talk) 02:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Neutral I have no strong feelings about this. I think it could work to some extent, but not convinced it is worth the effort. Not my effort, and I trust that you will not leave the articles in worse condition than when you start. • • • Peter (Southwood)(talk): 17:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Support conditionally Your proposal has considerable merit, since the existing coverage of fundamental principles of cooling is overlapping, partially redundant, and lacking in depth. The poor structure of the HVAC articles has led to intermittent and scattered attempts to improve coverage, but relatively few contributions by knowledgeable industry professionals (often of poor or primarily promotional quality).
I encourage you write a trial version of an artlcle, but reserve judgement until it is apparent whether or not it could be the seed of a worthwhile improvement. What you are proposing is a significant amount of work, but has the potential for major enhancements in the coverage, usability, and educational value of these related Wikipedia articles.
A major reason I created the Template:HVAC was to collate the various scattered articles in one place so readers can find them, but also so that overlaps and gaps in coverage would become more apparent to editors. It might be useful to organize a WP:WikiProject on HVAC, but I haven't decided whether it would be worth the effort or not. Reify-tech (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
First we begin this article with saying "Air conditioning is the process of removing heat and moisture" (because that's somehow the non scholar way of using the word). Then we later say "In the most general sense, air conditioning can refer to any form of technology that modifies the condition of air" and this is actually the correct terminology, even though professionals use the former. Are we going to abide by non intellectuals to determine the definition of this terminology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by B0ef (talk • contribs) 12:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
The section on efficiency specifically relates to the USA, and uses units that make no sense to most people in the world. Can somebody rewrite it to be more neutral? Groogle (talk) 02:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)