Talk:Sewage collection and disposal

Canalization redirect

Why on earth as I redirected from "Canalization"? The term has nothing to do with sewage, unless about canals, which aren't even mentioned in the article. -- 128.176.122.224

I made canalization into a disambiguation page. The disambiguation page does not have an entry for this article because it is unclear what it has to do with canalization and it is not mentioned at all in the article. I suspect that the only thing it has to do with sewage collection and disposal is that waterways that carry wastewater, or treated wastewater, can be channelized, the process of which is sometimes called canalization. However, that does not merit an entry on the disambiguation page, let alone a redirect. -- Kjkolb 09:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Good source

Could be used to expand the article: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=treating-sewage

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge with sanitary sewer article?

There is a lot of overlap with the article on sanitary sewer, I think the two should be combined. The better title is sanitary sewer as people are less likely to search in "sewage collection and disposal".EvM-Susana (talk) 07:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I am re-iterating my suggestion from May 2015 about merging with other articles. If there are no objections, then I will get onto that quite soon. EvMsmile (talk) 10:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

and the part about history should be merged into the other relevant article where history is described e.g. History of water supply and sanitation, so that we don't repeat the same thing on several pages. EvMsmile (talk) 11:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I transfered all information from this article (section Collection) to Sanitary sewer as far as I have not found them there.--Mll mitch (talk) 10:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Now I also transfered the main information from the section History to History of water supply and sanitation--Mll mitch (talk) 11:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

While I am neutral about dispersal of the information in this article to more focused articles, I disagree about merger of this article with the Sanitary sewer article. There is widespread confusion about the difference between combined sewers and separate sanitary sewers. Clarity will be enhanced by maintaining separately focused articles on storm sewers, combined sewers, and sanitary sewers separate from the overall history of sewage collection and treatment or disposal options. Subject overlap can be covered with hatnotes and main article links. Thewellman (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I had proposed the merger about a year ago (no response). I then re-iterated my suggestions in March (still no response). So it seemed that the article (sewage collection and disposal) was not a priority on people's watch lists. As the title of the article suggested, it was not dealine with storm sewers. We have this overarching article on sewers. The question is where should the information about history sit? I don't think it should be spread over too many pages. Also the old title "sewage collection and disposal" was misleading, as it left out the all important treatment step?? EvMsmile (talk) 11:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I propose to redirect from this page to the article on sanitary sewer or to sewer after moving its content to the other existing pages. The article page is "sewage collection and disposal" but it only talks about collection of sewage, and in a less comprehensive way than the article on sanitary sewers (why the current emphasis on vacuum sewers?). The history section could nicely be moved to either history of water supply and sanitation or to the history section of combined sewers (I need to double check but I assume the history part mainly deals with combined sewers as they are the older system).EvMsmile (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Placing the entire history of sewage collection and disposal at the end of a sewer article would tend to hide the information; and the history of water supply and sanitation article is already at the upper end of the optimum size range. A more accessible approach for laymen would be to maintain this article as a separate chronological sequence emphasizing the historical development of sewage collection and disposal from drainage ditches and sewage farms through combined sewers with the addition of sewage treatment facilities evolving into separate sanitary sewers to improve treatment efficiency for water recycling. This article should include links to focused articles of various types of sewers and treatment or reuse options for those interested in more detail. Thewellman (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

We should decide on which talk page we're having this discussion mainly, as I just replied to the same on the talk page of sanitary sewer. Anyhow. I don't think the article on history of water supply and sanitation is excessively long yet. Ultimately, it could perhaps be split into two, although water supply and sanitation go so closely hand in hand. - Another option might be to rename this article here to "History of sewage collection, treatment and disposal" and then place all the history stuff here and put a link from the other history article to here. What do you think of this option?EvMsmile (talk) 02:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I favor short focused, articles over long, comprehensive articles. Short articles with appropriate links can be rapidly scanned by readers to find the information they need, or the link to the article they really wanted. Longer articles require more time to read, and may frustrate readers if they don't contain the information the reader was looking for. Editors have similar difficulty determining appropriate placement for the information they want to add. Long articles are more likely to have duplicated information scattered in various locations.

Sewage collection and disposal could logically include treatment as appropriate for available disposal options; but I favor including history in the article title if required to avoid placing historical information in the last place a reader will find it. Thewellman (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with longer articles, as long as they are good and comprehensive. What I really don't like is to have identical long chunks of text on two or more pages, as it means having to make the same edits on two or more pages if we want to improve the content. So did I understand you right that you agree with my suggestion for changing the article title to "History of sewage collection, treatment and disposal"? Actually maybe just "History of sewage collection" would be sufficient, as the history of treatment is probably covered in the treatment article. Or "history of sewage management"? We could perhaps simply create a new page and then redirect from the old page to the new page? What's the best method?EvMsmile (talk) 04:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I am neutral about this article. My principle objection was to the proposal to bring what I regarded as confusing information into the sanitary sewer article. My preference for small focused articles remains, but I recognize other opinions may be more appropriate for comprehensive articles on more general subjects like this one. Thewellman (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, good. I have thought more about it and have decided to move all history content from this page to history of water supply and sanitation and then do a re-direct from this page to the other page. I think that will work out nicely. Also, it is impossibly to separate out "sanitation" from "sewage management" anyhow. EvMsmile (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Article content now moved to other pages

As per the discussion above, the content of this article has now been moved to other pages and a redirect set. Most of it went to history of water supply and sanitation. See history page if interested, as it's all detailed there. EvMsmile (talk) 11:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)