Talk:Plastic pressure pipe systems

message: Plastic pressure pipe systems is a very niche industry and there are only a handful of people in the world that understand the industry commercially, technically and scientifically. To my knowledge there are no end to end publications of the industry apart from the ones referenced here that are as comprehensive. There is very little that has been published about this industry.
Therefore, please can we encourage you to discuss your edits as some edits have been made without much thought for the intention here and have shown no understanding of the industry or the lack of published material about the industy.
Thank you. --Drpipe 14:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing This Article 

message: Please add your comments:
This seems to be added in Feb 2007 but has never been used. Please share your thoughts: --Grumpyrob 21:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible improvements for the future 

message: The consensus between the editors of this article has been that the external links are valid and they meet the Wikipedia criteria for external links. The Pipestock site contains copyrighted pictures that are not practical to put up plus technical data sheets and tables that cannot be put within the article. The Effast website contains free downloadable cad drawings that cannot be put within the article.
:I Agree with you on the first two, but the descriptions were a problem... I made some changes to clarify a bit more.
:The third one I removed as it provided no useful information related to the subject on their site. Does Staffordshire have an article on wikipedia? If so it would certainly be appropriate to add them to a "See Also" type section. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 19:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Please add your comments after any edits:
I see that you have archived off the old discussion which I think is good, my only comment would be how do we divied up the archive content over time? I also like the fact that you have left some edit headings for people to post under. --Pipeup 14:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up 

message: Please add your comments after any edits:
Minor content addition to the Pipes section--Pipeup 15:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have edited this article so that it reads like a Wiki entry and not like a company catalogue. n its previous form, it was qute indgestible! Peterlewis 16:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  To add to my comments already made, this is a poor article as it stands in reverted form. I work as a plastic pipe consultant, and it reads like a company catalogue, not a Wiki article. There were few links to materials or to mechanics, and it (is) or was extremely  repetitive. I have seen many company catalogues by the way! The format was very poor which much wasted space: you can say as much in a much smaller space. Even some of the plastc descriptors are wrong, like PVC-U with no link to uPVC. What use is that to potential users? Peterlewis 23:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  I apologise for the drastic edit, but it seems to me that the article will be of little use to browsers in its current form. Someone should try to make big improvements, for the sake of Wiki's reputation! It looks as if the article was hacked from a  company catalogue, and is very repetitive: is that a good use of Wikipedia space? There is also much data missing such as the distrous reputation of many plastic pipe systems in the USA (failure of PB and acetal fittings in Texas and most states in the 1990's) Peterlewis 10:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  What are you apologising for Peterlewis?. See Wikipedia:Be bold; also, could some of our self appointed experts please read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Aatomic1 20:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I note your last edit. Please peruse http://www.bsonline.bsi-global.com/search/results/1. (Place BS EN 1452- in search Box if needed). Aatomic1 12:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content 

message: Thanks for some support for an extended edit and update of this article. Contrary to what Drpipe says, there is much info available on the topic elsewhere, and could usefully be incorporated. PB pipe is well used n Europe even after the chaos in the USA and Canada. But potential users should be aware of some of the problems using plastic pressure pipe. I am quite willing to help with this article, but am not going to proceed if my efforts are to be deleted. Peterlewis 12:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many problems with this article. For instance, this sentence from the introduction violates WP:NPOV: "Plastic pressure pipe systems have many advantages to offer to the designer, installer and end user of pipe systems; they are light weight, easier to install than metal piping systems, faster to install as well as being more cost effective than metal piping systems. They are used for both above and below ground applications. A well installed and well maintained Plastic Pressure Pipe System could have a life cycle of up to 50 years." Phrases like "many advantages to offer" are not encyclopedic - they present a point of view. The following points (with the expception of the light weight nature of the pipes) are all opinions rather than well-referenced facts about the ppps. Further more, the "most common" applications listed in the opening section are immediately repeated in the table of contents making it both inppropriately detailed and repetitious. Consensus requires the support of several editors. One editor repatedly reverting useful edits by other editors does not equal consensus. Nposs 14:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: What sources? The entire opening paragraph is completely unreferenced. Please provide some references to support this point of view (not including literature/websites/publications by the PPPS industry). Nposs 14:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Drastic Edit

message: Consensus seems to have gone out of the window, lets start by positivly moving the article forward. The article could not be left in a cut up state, so I have reverted. Please add comments, suggestions and ideas below. --Grumpyrob 21:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and I've reverted.  Please take some time to read WP:OWN as well as WP:3RR... which you've already broken.--Isotope23 talk 14:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: ...I should also add that the version you are reverting too has a non-neutral point of view and lacks any reliable 3rd party sources for the claims it makes.  It's simply not acceptable as an encyclopedia article.--Isotope23 talk 14:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving the article forward 

message: I've protected this page due to sockpuppets continuing to revert the article.  I fully protected it, but if someone wants a drop to semi, just leave a message on my user takpage.--Isotope23 talk 14:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected

message: Does anyone believe this article has any encyclopedic merit whatsoever, or could the info be placed elsewhere?  I'm personally very skeptical of this article, so if no one wants to work on this, it can certainly be AfDed. MSJapan 15:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No opinion, but I'll semi this since the socks have all been put in the wash.--Isotope23 talk 15:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article has no merit at the moment, but could be drastically edited to something worthwhile. I would delete lists of pipe lengths, fittings, and add refs and critical comments (eg problems with plastic pipes) Peterlewis 16:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article was recreated as a POV fork, and while checking the sources after the AfD, the three refs that are listed here don't exist.  The Pipestock book is the manual that the company Pipestock publishes for its installers; it's not a publically available book; Greig's book is a PDF that he did not write (he was part of a team that wrote, again, an installation manual), and Al-Shammeri's book doesn't exist as far as I can tell.  Furthermore, 2 out of the other three books are very expensive, and the Chasis book dates from 1988, so I doubt that any of them were referenced in actuality.  The article is therefore unsourced, and unless someone can do something with it, I'm going to AfD it. MSJapan 02:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now that the socks have been cleared up.... 

message: It is weird and sad that this little stub is what WP has for PVC pipe.-96.237.8.162 (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  stubby 

message: What is the actual melting point of common PVC pipe?  How does it behave around that temperature?  What fumes are actually given off?  Are they hazardous or toxic? To what extent?
On the internet, "everyone knows" that PVC pipe fumes are toxic, supposedly. But what reliable detailed sources are there for this claim?
A Georgia Tech grad student in 2000 claimed that the smoke was hazardous, but makes no specific claims about fumes from melting without smoke.
It seems that PVC is a thermoplastic without a definite melting point. There are many DIY projects based on heating and bending it.  It may be reasonably safe to melt in small amounts outdoors with good ventilation.  Or not?
* http://www.wagerco.com/pvc/pvcPipeMSDS/pvcPipeMSDS.html
* www.sandersonpipe.com/msds.pdf
MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET
PVC PIPE
Efforts of Overexposure
There are no significant health hazards from vinyl compound at ambient temperatures.
Inhalation of decomposition or combustion products, especially hydrogen chloride, will
cause irritation of the respiratory tract, eyes and skin. Depending on the severity of
exposure, physiological response will be coughing, pain and inflammation. Individuals
with bronchial asthma and other types of chronic obstruction respiratory diseases may
develop bronchial spasms if exposure is prolonged.
Ventilation
Provide efficient exhaust at all operations creating fumes or vapor. Cutting or sawing,
machining, heat welding, thermofolding and other operations involving heat sufficient to
result in degradation should be examined to ensure adequate ventilation.
Since PVC is so common, and accidents do happen, how many people a year are actually harmed by PVC fumes and smoke?-96.237.8.162 (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toxic PVC pipe fumes