Talk:Ice dam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Meteorology (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Meteorology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Meteorology 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Glaciers (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Glaciers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Glaciers 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Commercial promotion[edit]

The section on buildings uses several commercial web sites as sources, and reads as kind of a checklist. Can anyone find any better sources?
--Gyrobo (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be taken care of, I checked all the links and seem to go to legitimate web sites. --MiniKing (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Removed promotional links and moved section to Roof#Ice dams on building roofs as it was a bit out of place here. Vsmith (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok... and another user reinstated a shortened version. Keep on truckin'. Vsmith (talk) 02:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


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 to split out the section on roof ice dams into a new article. Jim Derby (talk) 03:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I think this should be split into

  • a disambig page
  • Ice dam (earth science)
  • Ice dam (building roofs)

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Support such a split. Seems the roof article could accommodate the content as it has a shortage of referenced material and too many image galleries. Vsmith (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Let's split as suggested, and later see about merging ice dam (roof) with roof NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Support. I invited a user who has reverted such a move to join the discussion. I think ice dams as a geologic event could keep the simple article name "Ice dam" with a disambiguation hatnote for the other use. I do not think Ice dam (roof) will get much bigger than it is as an article and it may be better as a section of the article roof. I am hesitant to use the Wiki guidelines for split or merge since it is both. Jim Derby (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Ice dams on roofs is not an appropriate section for the article Roof.
Roof is a major topic and needs to deal with major aspects of roofs. Only the major aspects:
  • Design
  • Form
  • Parts
  • Function
Domestic roof construction has its own article.
List of commercially available roofing material, a topic of very broad application, has already been split off, because the section got very long.
Your current topic is much narrower than either of these.
The article Roof does not deal with
  • broken tiles,
  • slipped slates,
  • corroded flashing,
  • corrugated iron that blows off in the wind
  • nesting starlings in the thatch
  • theft of lead and copper
  • ice dams that block gutters
Ice dams is just one of many many problems that some roofs in some areas of the world can suffer. It is too specific for a general article.
Split it to a new article but don't add it to the major article, as if it was equivalent to: Design, Form, Parts and Function.
While I entirely agree with Jim Derby that the geological event and the roof problem don't belong in the same article, let me stress that the introduction of this sort of material to a generic article is not appropriate. It creates an immediate imbalance.
Search for the relevant article i.e. one that deals with roofing problems, or the design of roofs for cold climates. If there is not such an article, then create one.
I think that there is enough information for a separate article, with a disambig, as suggested above.
Amandajm (talk) 02:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I have a philosophy that an article title such as roof should touch on all aspects of the word and sections which are substantial can have there own articles. There is no concern for articles getting too big until they reach the 50kb range WP:SIZERULE. Right now the article roof is 20kb and rated as a start-class so it clearly needs work. I do not know how an article entirely devoted to ice dams on buildings relates to notability guidelines. Ice dams may be more relevant in the article Domestic roof construction since that is where most problems occur, as far as I know.
The list following "The article Roof does not deal with" comes across as sarcastic to me. I know Wikipedia is not a how-to manual but technical and engineering information is essential in building construction so it is a good thing to mention problems that can happen, like ice dams, and materials and designs which are available to fix or prevent problems. There is a paragraph in WP:NOTEVERYTHING that reads "In any encyclopedia, information cannot be included solely because it is true or useful. An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." However, I argue here that in building construction attention to detail is extremely important and detailed information will help the reader be educated and successful. Why does roof need to be a generic article? Jim Derby (talk) 03:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Why is Roof a generic article? Because it covers everything from rice straw to reinforced concrete.
Everything on the list of problems that I gave above is equally valid.
I was attempting to be humorous over the starlings and the rest, but in doing so, I was making a point about narrow focus.
Do you want to know how to thatch a roof with banana leaves so that they don't all blow off in a hurricane? Believe me, it is just as valid to that article as how to construct a roof to avoid ice dams.
One of the problems, from the start, is that people who are builders think that the article Roof ought to be about how to build a roof.
It isn't. It is about every roof that has every been built for every purpose. The topic is Roof. That is a generic title, whether you like it, or not.
You see, if you add all the details of ice dams on roofs in cold countries, then you have to consider what else should or could be added.
Are you then going to list the problems that are caused by not clipping the flashing onto the ridge of a slate roof properly? Are you going to describe in detail the mechanical forces at play in the construction of a hammer beam roof in a building like the Great Hall of Westminster? Are you going to describe all the methods of dome construction and vaulting? How much detail should be given to suspended roofs, and their particular problems?
This is about balance. The article is not about how to construct a roof. Get beyond thinking about it as a builder, and think Ancient Sumerian mud roof, African grass hut roof, Swiss chalet roof, Sydney Opera House roof. They are all equally valid in the article Roof. So describing in detail the construction, the inherent problems, and the solutions for any one of these roof types in inappropriate. The material needs to go where it is relevant.
Amandajm (talk) 04:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The current article is not long, so I don't see a problem with addressing both types of "ice dam" in it. If someone googles "ice dam", they may be looking for either type. If the article gets too long, then it can be split, with a disambig page/note. WCCasey (talk) 08:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Support split, but there is no need for disambiguation page if we can identify a primary topic, and simply add dablinks to both articles. However oppose proposed merger into roof as suggested. The roof related ice dam would rather fit together with other technical articles about roof construction details and issues related to snow and ice such as snow guard. --ELEKHHT 08:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support split with disambig page, or else another technical article as ELEKHH suggests, on roof insulation, perhaps. There doesn't appear to be an article on Roof insulation (or Insulation of roofs). Surely there should be, as it is a very important topic, both in technical and environmental terms. I think that is the way to go!
If you begin the article, you should set some clear sections so that insulation against both hot and cold can be dealt with. In many inland places, rural Australia for example, there can be extremes of both heat and cold to be dealt with, in the same geographic region. The difference this makes to roof shape and roof insulation is a consideration.
Be sure to link to other articles such as the two mentioned above.
Amandajm (talk) 08:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
If anyone starts an article on roof insulation, here's the German wiki article for inspiration. And here's one about roof avalanche. --ELEKHHT 08:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Ice dams not only form on flat or cathedral roofs, but also on roofs above unheated attic and crawl spaces. Then there's kneewalls. Probably the scope of the new article should be something like Insulation (Attics and Roofs). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I agree with Amandaj that we should not try to import our entire coverage of roof ice dams to roofs. On the other hand, that article does have a section called Roofs#Insulation; we could insert a {{main}} pointer to the main article on insulation. As for the list of maintenance related things previously listed, is there enought material there for an article Roofs (maintanence)? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. Amanda, I could not tell you were trying to be funny with the bird in the thatch. Knowing that makes me smile! I had to look up the definition of generic which is a synonym of general, opposite of specific, "...all or nearly all the parts of a whole" (Oxford English Dict.) so I think we are talking the same language. Another way to say it is that a generic article is made up of lots of specific information, but I see your point about how long roof would be if every possible detail in the history of the world were discussed.
There seems to be a consensus forming but I will still point out that the current interlanguage links all deal with the topic of river ice and no others discuss roof problems. The articles I see about building insulation are building insulation, building insulation materials, superinsulation, and building envelope. Attic#Ventilation also touches on the roof ventilation which combined with insulation is the best way to prevent ice damming. I am still uncertain if roof ice dam should be an article or be a section of another article. Jim Derby (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I think that you have altogether enough info for a short separate article, which should then be linked to the Building insulation article, as a "See also" to the cold climate section.
If you make a new article of it, it might even be eligible for DYK. Amandajm (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Jim Derby, I just took a look at the German article de:Dachdämmung on roof maintenance, as advised by ELEKHH.
I discovered that they had a whole section called Aufsparrendämmung, which (since my German isn't very good) appeared to me to be about how to rid a roof of those damned little flying mice.
So I looked it up, here and it wasn't.
Amandajm (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I am surprised no foreign language wikis seem to have an existing article on roof ice dams. In German they are called eisschanzen. I was just editing the other aspects of ice dam and have come to think that glacial ice dams are such a different mechanism than river ice dams (and lake ice dams are wind driven but do not cause flooding) that maybe they should be independent articles, too. Jim Derby (talk) 02:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Lake ice dams might not cause flooding, but they do occasionally cause some lakeshore damage if the ice piles up high enough. This has happened on Lake Champlain a few times. Guy1890 (talk) 07:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I think you mean ice ridges not ice dams NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.