Talk:Wastewater treatment plant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Environment (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This environment-related redirect is part of the WikiProject Environment 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.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
Stub-Class article Stub  This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 


--Alex 09:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC) what the hell is this..... i want to open water tratment plant but here is only waste water treatmant plant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.224.77.248 (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

De-disambiguated[edit]

I have de-disambiguated this page on the following grounds. First, this is not properly a disambiguation page per WP:DABCONCEPT, as all of the terms listed are subtypes within a single broader topic, specifically variations of the concept of a plant where water is treated to remove substances considered waste. Second, the links on this page do not contain the phrase "Wastewater treatment plant", but are instead links to articles about kinds of treatment, irrespective of whether a "plant" is involved. Therefore, none of the articles linked are ambiguous to the term, "Wastewater treatment plant". bd2412 T 19:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The re-direct should go to sewage treatment, not to water treatment[edit]

I have changed the redirect of this page to go to sewage treatment, not to water treatment, but someone has reverted it. I have just written on the talk page of the "water treatment" page about it: I agree with comments made above that the title "water treatment" is quite misleading here. Water treatment should be for potable water treatment only. The other process - wastewater treatment - does not fit under "water treatment". What ever happened to the suggestion of changing the title to "water and wastewater treatment"? But I actually think we are better off splitting of the content from this page that is not about potable water treatment and move them to the page on "wastewater treatment". I think the page on "sewage treatment" should actually be renamed to "wastewater treatment" and include municipal wastewater treatment and industrial wastewater treatment. The terms sewage and wastewater are these days used interchangeable in terms of municial wastewater at least (which anyway includes industrial wastewater). Only the purely industrial wastewater is not part of "sewage" but the treatment processes used are anyway the same more or less, e.g. UASB, ponds, tricking filters. EvM-Susana (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, this has now been solved with the new page for wastewater treatment plant. Great! Thanks. EvM-Susana (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Why do we need these bullet points for industrial wastewater treatment?[edit]

I am wondering if these bullet points should be deleted as they are surely all explained from the main page of "industrial wastewater treatment"?:

  • An API oil-water separator, for removing separate phase oil from wastewater.
  • A clarifier, for removing solids from wastewater.
  • A roughing filter, to reduce the biochemical oxygen demand of wastewater.
  • A carbon filtration plant, to remove toxic dissolved organic compounds from wastewater.

Otherwise, we could also have lots of sub-bullet points for sewage treatment plant? EvM-Susana (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Inclusion illustrates the difference between sewage treatment plants and industrial wastewater treatment plants by recognizing each one of these might be a functional wastewater treatment plant for a variety of wastewaters independent of the other waste treatment units present in a sewage treatment plant. There may be some overlap, because this article differentiates various types of wastewater treatment PLANTS, while the industrial wastewater treatment article broadly describes means of achieving TREATMENT for various wastewaters with alternative arrangements of treatment devices.
I don't have time to assemble a bulleted list or wikitable of the various possible configurations of treatment ponds, clarifiers, secondary treatment mechanisms, tertiary treatment options, and alternative disinfection methods (with individual reference citations) to form a complete sewage treatment plant; but it's not a bad idea. If the list became too long for this article, the sewage treatment plant redirect might be expanded into a list, or a separate List of sewage treatment plant configurations could be created with a main article link to the list within the sewage treatment article as a means of focusing the sewage treatment article on TREATMENT. The list might include appropriately referenced examples of sewage treatment plants using each of the described treatment configurations and the advantages of that configuration. Thewellman (talk) 06:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
the page is coming together quite nicely. However, I would prefer the use of the term references (rather than notes and sources). I normally use references and then further reading. Those sentences that you marked as "citations needed" in the lead came from me and the references would most likely be found in Metcalf and Eddy (when I have time, I can dig up the exact references, for me it is textbook knowledge). By the way, I think you should rather cite the latest edition of Metcalf and Eddy, from memory there is a more recent one. Will look it up when I have time. - I don't understand your differentiation between "treatment" and "treatment plant". For me, that would be an articifial differentation because you can't have treatment without a tretament plant - they go hand in hand. It would be doubling of efforts to create two different articles (so industrial wastewater treatment and industrial wastewater treatment plant should be the same - unless the former would focus more on regulatory and legal aspects? I guess these legal aspects could and should also be included in the page on wastewater treatment plant (or rather in the sub-pags)).EvM-Susana (talk) 10:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I encourage you (or any other editor) to provide reference citations from the latest edition of Metcalf & Eddy. My access is limited to the edition I listed; and I consider an old citation preferable to no citation. Separation of treatment from treatment plant depends on the amount of information available. Short articles can certainly cover both; but at some point articles become so long that descriptions of one make it difficult to locate descriptions of the other. The problem becomes worse when editors with differing organizational concepts insert information (sometimes identical information) at different points in a long article because they haven't taken the time to read the article thoroughly before making their contribution, or if they have read the article thoroughly, they simply disagree with the existing organizational concept but don't take the time to completely reorganize the article because it is so long. Disorganized long articles should be broken into shorter articles consistent with editors' willingness and ability to maintain a structure enabling readers to rapidly find the information they need. Thewellman (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Some useful information and citations can probably be found at Wastewater#Treatment. It is true that long articles should be broken up, but this is nowhere near that threshold (usually we start thinking of breaking an article up when it passes 32k; this article is at about 5k).Cheers! bd2412 T 17:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I have copied and merged the content of this page to the page on wastewater treatment and placed a redirect from here to there. See the talk page of wastewater treatment for more information. I have also moved content from [[Wastewater#Treatment] to wastewater treatment in reaction to the comment by BD2412.EvM-Susana (talk) 21:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
That makes eminently good sense. I fully support this solution. bd2412 T 22:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. EvM-Susana (talk) 07:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Should the redirect rather not go to a sub-heading?[edit]

I see that the redirect from this page now goes to a sub-heading within the article of wastewater treatment. I just wonder if that is good practice, since the sub-heading title could change in future, in which case the re-direct gets broken and nobody may notice. For that reason, I think the re-direct from "wastewater treatment plant" should simply go to wastewater treatment. I think people will easily find the right section that they are looking for, as the article is not that long? EvM-Susana (talk) 07:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

It's fine for a redirect to go to a subheading. If there is a concern that the subheading may be changed, what we usually do is to include a hidden note in the subhead, like <!--[[Wastewater treatment plant]] redirects to this section; if the section name is changed, please change this redirect accordingly-->. bd2412 T 14:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, good compromise, I have added the hidden note. However, when editors use the new editor (and not the source editor) then they won't see the hidden note. EvM-Susana (talk) 19:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I hadn't thought of that. It sounds like a bug. bd2412 T 19:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it's a bug; it's just something to be aware of as more and more editors might move away from using the source editor to using the what-you-see-is-what-you-get editor.EvM-Susana (talk) 09:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
The VisualEditor people are telling me that readers can see the hidden warning if they click the exclamation point in the circle. This seems to fall a bit short to me. bd2412 T 14:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I had seen such exclamation marks before but had never clicked on them myself. Not quite ideal but I guess in any case it is better than nothing. Hopefully some people (editors) would click on the exclamation mark... Thanks for investigating! EvM-Susana (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I've asked them if they can improve on that. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Improved redirect to focused subsection[edit]

Just curious why someone might think this redirect is better to the top of the article rather than to the specific section on the facilities which provide that treatment. I suggest it is far easier for someone to simply search for or make a link to wastewater treatment if that is truly what they are looking for; whereas individuals seeking information about a wastewater treatment plant might be looking for a location rather than what happens at that location, or a specific treatment device installed at that location rather than the broader action performed by that device. I can also anticipate people expecting to find information about species from the plant kingdom associated with improving the quality of wastewater. In each of these latter instances, the individual would have to wade through the broad description of what was happening before finding what they really wanted. If one arrives here truly expecting the broader information, one can simply scroll up to find it. Thewellman (talk) 00:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if there is an official policy on this. It was me who changed that redirect. I personally find it confusing if a redirect takes me to the middle of an article. The first thing I do is to scroll to the top and see which article I landed in. So I think it makes more sense to redirect to the article, not to the section. Someone looking for "wastewater treatment plant" is probably also interested in the broader topic of "wastewater treatment", not just that particular section. EMsmile (talk) 23:08, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Anyone is still free to scroll to the top if they wish. The top is easy to find in comparison to something buried at some undisclosed location within the article. A person looking for a wastewater treatment plant, however, probably already knows what that vegetation is attempting to accomplish; and may be frustrated looking through the article without finding something meeting his expectations. The disambiguation hat note on that section would be less appropriate at the top of the article. Thewellman (talk) 00:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Well this is personal preference - I still prefer to be guided to the top of the article not in the middle somewhere. But OK, never mind. EMsmile (talk) 11:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)