Talk:Drain-waste-vent system

message: The original article seemed a little difficult to read.  I tore it apart and rewrote it to be a little shorter and clearer.
It also seemed to be a sales pitch for air admittance valves, which I'd never heard of before.  I suspect most people are more familiar with the stack-on-the-roof sewer vent, so I wrote the article more around those, and left the AAV link if people want more information.
Finally, a picture of a residential building with a sewer vent would be very useful, as would a diagram of a vent, two traps, and sewer line.
--Mdwyer 19:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewriting 

message: I have removed the suggestion of a merge to Domestic water system, because this topic is more generally applicable than to just that system.  I have merged in the content of Air-admittance valve.  I have also begun the process of wikifying this article. -- kaosfere 18:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging and Cleanup 

message: The "Venting to atmosphere" section is great!  Of course, diagrams and picutres would make it even better...  But the "Air admittance valve" section does not make sense -- if it only allows gases in, not out, how does it prevent back-pressure when a toilet flushes?69.87.193.156 13:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Air admittance valve?

message: FYI -- I'm cleaning up/organizing the plumbing articles.  129.237.114.171 18:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup of plumbing articles

message: The article uses "flashing" in the sense of a one-way valve, which is usually an integral part of the "building clean-out".  No definition of flashing in this sense exists in the Wikipedia.  I would like to change the word flashing to "one-way valve", and include a link to the article for "clean-out", if one exists. --chollapete, May, 2006.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chollapete (talk • contribs) 21:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flashing? 

message: There are other articles on these topics which are more complete. I think this section should just be removed. I don't even see a need for this article to link to articles like Water supply network or Waste treatment Tibbetts2c (talk) 01:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and have removed the section from the article.  I have moved the deleted text here, in the event that somebody wants to salvage/recycle it to a more useful location. Reify-tech (talk) 04:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Municipal water and waste water treatment section 

message: This article appears to have a strong bias towards the commercial products of a single company. It also appears to be almost exclusively written from an American viewpoint. To my European eyes it uses strange terminology and old-fashioned designs. Indeed, the title of this page is a term I have never even heard of before, whilst the to me extremely well-known term 'Air Admittance Valve' apparently doesn't even have a page of its own and redirects here.
I see that this talk page mentions the HepVO products but mention seems to have been removed from the page itself. I would have thought the the whole concept of waterless traps deserved at least a mention. Their existence contradicts statements on the main page. I wonder if this is a commercial editor removing mention of a competitor?
A most important distinction that should be made is between a Soil Stack (SS - a pipe that takes away waste) and a Soil Ventilation Pipe (SVP - a pipe that vents the sewer). Historically, these were usually combined, which meant that the stack had to pass through the roof with attendant thermal management problems. Separating them means that SS can use AAV and run entirely within the building, whilst the SVP is open and is entirely outside the building.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.85.79 (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias in Article 

message: I have done a major rewrite sweep and reorganization of the article, which I hope makes it less confusing. Currently, the article focuses on the vent system, and almost completely ignores the drain system.  Coverage of this aspect needs to be improved, discussing things such as the need for smooth flow ("bellmouthed" joints) and the correct range of piping slopes for proper transport of entrained material.
Also, the article needs more globalization, and still has almost no references.  Most of the unreferenced claims should be easily backed by relevant sections of one or more plumbing codes. Help from knowledgeable editors is needed. Reify-tech (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup sweep / More work needed

message: The usage and primary topic of  is under discussion, see talk:Venting (disambiguation) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: "Venting"

message: Would be good to have descriptions or links for drain, waste, vent, soil. Saulinpa (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Attempted something :) Rogerdpack (talk) 08:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitions 

message: The article is titled "drain-waste-vent system". Is it a set of three components (the drain, the waste, the vent), or is it a vent for the "drain-waste" (elsewhere in the article, it is written as "drain-waste vent"), or something else? With the current hyphenated format, it suggests each term modifies the next, whereas if it is three separate related parts it should be endashed, or...whatever the meaning is would be formatted appropriately for it. See MOS:DASH for guidance. DMacks (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing parsing of topic term 

message: We need an explanation of both these. We have an explanation for air admittance valve but a distinction is made between them by this source:
*
It further refers to http://www.buellinspections.com/your-plumbing-system-should-not-pass-gas-indoors to explain these. 64.231.169.63 (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Cheater vents 2 types check or AA

message: From the current contents of the article,
"double trapping is prohibited by plumbing codes due to its susceptibility to clogging" - that doesn't make sense.
If it were just the risk of clogging, it may be undesirable, not recommended - but why *prohibit* it entirely?
The actual reason I found after checking on this topic is that double trapping creates an (mostly inelastic) air buffer between the traps, which when one trap is emptied, will pull the other empty as well, thus negating the (roof) vent and trap purpose of keeping the stink in the plumbing.
If someone can confirm - that would be a reason for prohibiting, rather than recommending against, and the article should be corrected.
--87.234.239.90 (talk) 10:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  double trapping "prohibited"