Talk:Constructed wetland

message: Merely a Wiktionary definition? or a subsection somewhere? This is not free-standing... --Wetman 23:38, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I have worked for 21 years designing and constructing wetlands throughout North America and never once have I heard anyone referring to them as "wetparks". It feels like this is a self-serving expression to the person who invented this moniker. Can anyone confirm that this expression is actually understood to mean an artificial, engineered or constructed wetland?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain Selenium (talk • contribs) 16:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The term is used by at least one proponent in Sweden. http://www.holon.se/folke/projects/vatpark/concept.shtml Not much of a trend. I would agree that this term has not caught on in English-speaking countries. Moreau1 (talk) 03:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, it's the first thing that I stumbled across. Will remove the "wetpark" mention from the first sentence now. EvM-Susana (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wetpark? 

message: Constructed Wetlands include, but are not limited to Treatment Wetlands. In my view, the pages could be merged, but treatment wetlands should be a category within the wider heading of Constructed Wetlands to allow sufficient space for habitat enhancement wetlands, riparian filter wetlands and stormwater attenuation wetlands - all of which have a treatment role, but are not primarily treatment wetlands per se. Feidhlim.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feidhlim.harty (talk • contribs) 15:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging Treatment Wetlands and Constructed Wetlands 

message: I did some minor edits on the types of wetlands especially on the subsurface flow wetlands. Actually I am not sure what is meant by the "tidal-flow wetlands" and the "treatment wetland". Are there any references for those sub-sections? Isn't the "treatment wetland" the same as a "constructed wetland" and therefore wrong as a sub-section within the "Types"?
Can anyone explain the rules for citation on this cite? As far as I can see, the footnotes have to be linked to the citations. How do I do that? To me this way of citation seems quite complicated but I might be wrong...
An idea is to adapt the manual of style for sanitation to this article. What do you think about that?
Here in my sandbox I tried how an adaption could look like. I might not need all the headings. Sometimes they don't fit very well and could be modified?
Also I plan to broaden the article on subsurface flow wetlands.
Mll mitch (talk) 10:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  some questions and considerations on adapting the manual of style for sanitation articles 

message: I agree with what Mll mitch has written above. I have just done some re-arranging to this article. I also find that the sections on nitrogen/ammonia and phosphorus removal are probably a bit too detailed and could be condensed (and linked with other articles, e.g. sewage treatment).
I also suggest that we change the referencing style to the direct referencing (without going via notes). Would anyone have a problem with that? EvM-Susana (talk) 13:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have done further re-working of this article. I removed chunks of text which were written like scientific review articles, going into far too much depth and often mixing up natural wetlands with constructed wetlands. I am still unclear on how to convert the "footnotes" and "citations" into one single list of references. Does anyone know how to do this, or does it need to be done manually, one by one? Do you happen to know, Velella or Thewellman? EvM-Susana (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Having waded through all the citations, most (all ?) appear to primary sources which Wikipedia guidance suggests should be avoided. I suspect that it needs a careful review of each citation and only retain those that are  review papers or other overarching sources and remove all the remainder. Wikipedia is not an academic publication and constructed wetlands as a topic does appear to have attracted many Ph.D students in its time. I am not sure that we need to have all the papers produced by that research re-stated here.   Velella  Velella Talk   21:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just waded through them all again, and my own choleric view is that if they don't support a fact or assertion in the article by means of an in-line citation, then the whole damn lot can be deleted!.  Velella  Velella Talk   21:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

text: *I concur. My professional experience with constructed wetlands indicates performance is difficult to measure with conventional water quality analyses. Many will seasonally release organic material producing ambiguous BOD and/or NFR spikes which might represent either untreated waste or detritus from wetland vegetation; and most produce elevated coliform counts attributed to wild birds, but possibly representing unremoved human pathogens. Suspended natural organic detritus prevents effective UV disinfection; and imposes an additional load for disinfection with ozone or chlorine, with increased disinfection byproducts for the latter. Total dissolved solids concentrations will increase in dry climates or be diluted by precipitation in wet climates. One of the most interesting cases was a finding of dioxin in outfall sediments of a constructed wetland treating municipal sewage. Although wetland advocates blamed illegal dumping (at best an admission of toxic chemical removal limitations); detritus of chlorine-bleached toilet tissue seemed an equally valid possibility. Many reports focus on the successful aspects of individual wetlands, while failing to describe either a broader spectrum of pollutant removal efficiencies or seasonal variations. Absence of secondary sources reflects the difficulty of broadly predicting effluent concentrations of constructed wetlands for any specific waste stream and climate. Thewellman (talk) 22:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for improvement 

message: Thanks, User:Klbrain for moving the content across and deleted the superfluous article on "integrated constructed wetlands". The section that you moved across will need some further work as it's not well written for laypersons. I actually doubt that "integrated constructed wetlands" is a term used much outside of some research circles. Am I wrong? I had never come across it before and I have read a fair bit of literature on constructed wetlands. EMsmile (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy with your assessment. I'm not expert enough to have deleted it, so thought a fairly simple move was a first step. I also worked on converting the references into the standard form. I note your edits in the lede, and that you've moved the section; both edits looks very sensible to me. I had initially placed it in the 'surface flow' section, as that is part of the (referenced) definition, but the place you've moved it to is fine as well. I note that the references and use are predominantly Irish/Scottish groups, so their nomenclature might well represent some regional jargon that hasn't spread widely. The (compared to other material on Wikipedia) referencing suggests to me that most of the referenced material is worth keeping, although I agree that none-primary references from a different group would be preferred! Klbrain (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The does seem to some some more recent (2017) use of Integrated Constructed Wetland by Northern Ireland water. Klbrain (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have done some more culling and compressing of that section, as it was written overly enthousiastically... I think it's OK now. The references still don't have hyperlinks, should still be added some time. EMsmile (talk) 12:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content moved from article on integrated constructed wetlands