Talk:Urine-diverting dry toilet

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Which image to use in the lead?

I have decided to put a photo in the lead article rather than the schematic. I think that's better, isn't it? Even though it is not easy to decide which UDDT photo should be taken to be the "typical" UDDT. EvM-Susana (talk) 13:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adapting the Sanitation Manual of Style

I am working on adapting this article to the Sanitation Manual of Style. I am also adding information, that I do not find in the article yet. Following sections need to be written: Maintenance, Health aspects (includes general promotion efforts), Usage: Includes information on acceptance Mll mitch (talk) 15:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The term septic-based system is ill-defined and other small things

Hi, Gruster, thanks a lot for impropving this article, just a couple of things: You have introduced the term septic-based system. In my opinion, this term is ill-defined. Perhaps it is widely used in the US, but not outside. I would recommend that we still to the convention of terms found in the Eawag-Sandec Compendium, see http://ecompendium.sswm.info/glossary I think what you mean is either on-site sanitation systems or septic tank based sanitation systems, or sanitation systems with local infiltration of partially treated wastewater. So I would not like to use the term "septic-based" in this article.

Also, I think we need to stick to either British English or American English but not mix both. I had used faeces throughout but now I sometimes see feces. I though I used the -ised but now I see -ized (and -isation, not -ization). I could also live with a decision to switch the entire page to US spelling if needed, but if the majority is currently in British English (is it?), then we should stick to that?

The same applies to the units. I think we should stick with SI units, or if you want to give US-units then let's put the SI units in brackets afterwards?

You have added a pile of references to one sentence (it's the sentence on pharmaceutical residues). I think that is not necessary and just indicates "bias". We are not meant to cite individual research articles anyhow but rather review articles. I think we should make life for our readers easier and make a selection for them, which article or two is the most important one. Unless the articles are covering different aspects but then the sentence should perhaps be split in two. (and I think it would actually deviate too far from the UDDT topic, perhaps you want to rather review the article on "wastewater treatment plant"). EvM-Susana (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your first point, I will amend to read "septic tank based sanitation systems".
Regarding your second point I am disappointed (with myself) as I have made a sincere effort to keep to Queen's English in an effort to maintain consistency. So, my apologies for any instances in which I was not successful. Please feel free to "correct" each instance when you come across them and I will do the same.
Regarding your third point, I thought I was doing so but, apparently I've failed here as well. :( But since you've raised the notion I think that we should include both. Also I'm fine with US units coming second; in other words, being the ones between brackets/parentheses).
Regarding your fourth point, chalk my behavior up to inexperience. I had no idea that studies are not recommended (and that review articles are). In my work its exactly the other way round. Hmmm. I'll have to edit the notes that you refer to. As for the quantity of references, I was only trying to make up for the fact that there's no report that I am aware of that reviews the totality of recent research on this issue. I'll have to regroup and make a smaller selection. Gruster (talk) 03:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you guys would stick to the King's English ... Henry IV, that is. Geoffrey Chaucer was so much more ... direct :) 210.22.142.82 (talk) 08:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

suggestions

This article seems long and filled with dry lists. Also, 30 references are to the same article or a summary of that article. There's even more references involving the " von Muench, E" guy. It begins to seem POV. Aren't there alternative views/sources? Can the article be chopped down? For comparison, this article is 80,231 bytes.

  • 29,487 bytes (Sanitation)
  • 8,932 bytes (Dry toilet)
  • 45,385 bytes (Composting toilet)

It would be an advantage if the article was short and concise, in consideration of the reader, and less complicated in terms of jargon. EChastain (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further, almost all of the material here is the POV of the Sustainable Sanitation Alliance. This is not a neutral article. EChastain (talk) 01:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the same heading is repeated. All headings are supposed to be uniques. And the named references are impossible to follow, especially those from the Sustainable Sanitation Alliance. This makes it very difficult for other editors to edit. EChastain (talk) 01:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt that this page could benefit from further work on it, I invite anyone to do so, and very much look forward to it. Just a small request: if the plan is to cut out large chunks of text or to create spin-off articles then let's first discuss it here on the talk page. Regarding the length of the article, what is the optimum or recommended length? I looked in the Wikipedia Manual of Style WP:MOS but tidn't find information on it. The article on toilets has a similar length (72,037), is that a problem? - Please point out which words you consider as being jargon (or change them). EvM-Susana (talk) 08:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have just found the relevant page about the size WP:SIZERULE. Going by that, it is long but not extremely long (less than 100 kB) - mind you I took the length from the history page which is not the same as the readable prose lenght which I don't know how to determine. EvM-Susana (talk) 08:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
About the citations to documents that are located on the SuSanA website: there seems to be a misunderstanding here. Jsut because a publication is located on the SuSanA website does not mean that SuSanA has published this document. SuSanA has a website which has a library section: www.susana.org/library. In the library there are currently nearly 2000 documents. Some of these documents are only in the SuSanA library, but most of them are also located on other people's websites. If you prefer that the hyperlink goes to the other organisation's website (like IRC), that can be done. But what would be the benefit? The aim is to avoid broken links in the future. People sometimes move their document around on their website which results in a broken link. In the SuSanA library everything is nice and easily accessible. EvM-Susana (talk) 08:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have actually had a similar conversation on the talk page of the open defecation article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Open_defecation#Page_numbers
JMWt had pointed out there "And complaining about SuSanA as being an advocacy group is rather ridiculous - akin to suggesting that a engineering organisation is not a place to find books, expertise and experiences about engineering." EvM-Susana (talk) 08:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will now go back into the article and revert a few times where you wrote "published by SuSanA" - these documents were not published by SuSanA, they are only in the library of SuSanA, but they were published e.g. by IRC. EvM-Susana (talk) 08:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Take this reference for example: http://www.susana.org/en/resources/library/details/874 It is a document by GIZ but you (or someone else) has changed it to being the SuSanA website. This document has nothing was published by GIZ and then placed in the SuSanA library so that it has a URL.EvM-Susana (talk) 09:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
EvM-Susana, every citation for which, if the reader clicks on it, ends up at the Sustainable Sanitation Alliance website, the name of the website should be given. Are there no other sources for these citations? Plus most of the images in this article have a big "Sustainable Sanitation Alliance box on them and a link to your organisation. You don't think this article gives undue emphasis on Sustainable Sanitation Alliance? EChastain (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the nth time - it is a library. There are probably other sources of the information just as there are other ways to find papers than using PubMed. We chose to use the SuSanA library, if you don't like it, why don't you spend time finding exactly the same references elsewhere on the internet? I use it because I don't have the time to track down these references elsewhere, and frankly this conversation is getting rather stale rather quickly. If you can't be bothered to follow up with your complaints and find better references, then I'm not interested in continuing to communicate with you and your disruptive behaviour.JMWt (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

JMWt, every citation for which, if the reader clicks on it, ends up at the Sustainable Sanitation Alliance website, the name of the website should be given. Are there no other sources for these citations? Plus most of the images in this article have a big "Sustainable Sanitation Alliance box on them and a link to your organisation. You don't think this article gives undue emphasis on Sustainable Sanitation Alliance?

And I have provided links to more neutral sources on another article, CLST which explains why there's no reliable outcome data but it seems there's no interest in using alternative sources, even when they're more informative. EChastain (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why you have used the edit conflict template I have not unedited any of your edits that I'm aware of. Find your own images and versions of the articles if you want or don't if you don't. Honestly, are you doing anything other than tagging? JMWt (talk) 14:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody said anything about stopping you from adding other sources to CLTS. Read the sources and add them if you think they're good. Funny that, you don't need my permission to edit and add sources. JMWt (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SuSanA is an umbella organisation of many different organisations in sanitation. The library has a collection of more papers and images in one place than anyone else. Of course, you are welcome to add the same papers, or others from elsewhere and the same images or others from elsewhere if you can find them. On the latter point, it is unlikely you'll find them outside of SuSanA, so good luck with doing that. JMWt (talk) 14:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fundamental point you don't seem to be getting is that you are saying articles are by SuSanA when they are not by SuSanA, but simply located in the SuSanA library. If you actually bothered to read the sources you are editing, of course, you'd know that. JMWt (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JMWt, the (edit conflict) template means that I got an "edit conflict" when I first tried to post my comment. It has nothing to do with you and using it is a common practice when an editor gets an "edit conflict" notice and has to repost. Please don't take common practices personally and feel you must get snarky. Also, the "fundamental point" is that many articles are the Sustainable Sanitation Alliance, so where the citation template says "website=", its correct to give the website. After all, its that website that the reader will see.

Also, in many countries a PhD thesis (or dissertation) is not published by the university where the student received his/her PhD. If in Sweden the university does publish all PhD theses, than please correct me. In any case, a thesis is not considered a reliable source and there are five citations in this article to PhD theses.

For ease of editing for other editors, it would be better to use more intuitive names for "named references". For example, using <ref name=":6">, <ref name=":11"> obscures the source to editors not "in the know" regarding the names of citations in this article. A more common method is to use the author or the title, as in <ref name="technology review">.

According to the MoS, section heading should not be repeated in the article. See MoS Section headings. The heading "Comparison with pit latrines" is used in two different sections.

In any event, the article is much improved since yesterday. And we both know that this is just a website and not worth getting upset. I apologise if I've caused you be noncollaborative as your post above (and below) indicates. Wikipedia is based on collaborative editing, not on article ownership, no matter how "right" another editor feels they are. No one holds the truth. Best, EChastain (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in Europe as far as I know it is common that the PhD theses pdf files are placed in some sort of online depository that the university runs. How else would someone be able to get hold of them? Perhaps you wouldn't call this "publish" if you equate publishing with a proper publishing company that also does books etc. It is simply a matter of making a pdf file or a PhD thesis available online. And yes, I have been told that PhD theses are not the preferred sources in Wikipedia. However, in sanitation we don't have the luxury that people have in medicine where you have heaps and heaps of peer reviewed articles and Cochrane reviews and all that sort of stuff. We are happy when we find a good reference at all. Most likely, Charles Niwagaba did actually publish some articles from his PhD thesis, too. If someone has the time he/she can use Google Scholar to find them. However, they may be behind a paywall (not free access), therefore, I actually think it is easier for people who are interested to read in his PhD thesis than in the journal article. But of course the journal articles could be added as well. - Actually the citation type for such a PhD thesis should actually not be "website" it should be "publication" or similar. I use the forum "basic" when I create the citations, not "website"; I think you changed that or I am not sure why it's now set to "website". EvM-Susana (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And another example: take the WHO Guidelines from 2006 which we often cite. They are not published by SuSanA either. They are located in the SuSanA library here: http://www.susana.org/en/resources/library/details/1004 . They are also located on the website of WHO here (quick Google search found it): http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/wastewater/gsuweg4/en/ Whether the one URL is given or the other one makes no difference in my view - they both lead the reader to the same pdf file by WHO.
Using the same heading title twice: yes, so how can this be changed if indeed it needs to be changed? I find an advantages and disadvantages section (compared to certain other technologies) quite helfpul (it is not the same as a pros and cons section). What could be an alternative way to convey the same information?EvM-Susana (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And about the use of something like this: <ref name=":6"> I never edit this manually. The number is inserted by Wikipedia when I use the "cite" button in the editor. I don't see why it would be necessary to change it? The number corresponds with the number given below and one just needs to click on it to see where it takes you. Editing this referral number manually just seems to be something that takes up more time, as far as I can see (but perhaps I am wrong). EvM-Susana (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EvM-Susana, are you ever open-minded about anything? If you don't learn to do citations properly, avoid copy/pastes and learn the MoS, these articles of yours will never get respect. Just because you find certain things helpful, that doesn't mean you can violate the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Sheesh!

And a pdf document is not "published", as surely you already know. Anyone can put a pdf document on a website, and there's no indication that your website peer reviews. It looks like you put up the material you agree with. (I know I recognise the names of the authors, as they're in many of the 10,000 images you have on the Commons. And I know you're affiliated with Gesellschaft für International Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, Eschborn, Germany.)

You have 5 references to PhD "theses".I don't know why you give credibility to pre-doctoral documents. Is it because they say what you want and no peer reviewed, secondary source does? You can't find proper citations because there's no outcome data to show that your efforts are effective, for the reasons given in the CLTS article I referred you to."CLTS data are collected but not regularly reported" and are "unreliable" etc. So the necessary research has yet to be done. EChastain (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Your compadre above got upset because I used an (edit conflict) template. Another Sheesh! for that. EChastain (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. (again, again) You are an advocacy group. Why do you have your name and links to your site plastered all over the place? And why do you only use your library that doesn't contain anything that's data based, when there's plenty of similar libraries and "knowledge hubs"? I think you should avoid the appearance of impropriety. (Even your user name is an advert.) And if WHO has published something, then you should cite them, not your "library". It does make a difference, contrary to your claim. EChastain (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainable Sanitation Alliance

EvM-Susana, I think that in every case where the link you provided ends up at the Sustainable Sanitation Alliance website, the name of the website should be given. This is for the readers sake, as its disturbing how many citations/sources come from your website and this gives the appearance of conflict of interest. There are hundreds of NGOs that are engaged in upgrading sanitation in the same areas as your organisation is. Although you say that your organisation, Sustainable Sanitation Alliance, does not promote, it certainly has a "mission", written by SuSanA. (There's so much unexplained jargon there such as MDG?) Is it the case that Sustainable Sanitation Alliance publish on their website only the articles of members who choose to join the organisation or do they publish those of others also?

As I pointed out to you on Talk:Community-led total sanitation, there are more neutral organisations that are attempting to provide outcome studies through data analysis on the success of efforts by NGOs such as yours. Many are also supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF). More variation in sources would improve this article, in my opinion, and perhaps reduce the overwhelming emphasis on Sustainable Sanitation Alliance website. All the more necessary, in my view, as so many of the images used in the article have the big "Sustainable Sanitation Alliance" box on them. EChastain (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a library of documents by other organisations in sanitation. which part of this are you not understanding? JMWt (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, if you know of a better source of sanitation articles written by professionals, why don't you cite them? You are tilting at windmills. JMWt (talk) 14:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
on this: "As I pointed out to you on Talk:Community-led total sanitation, there are more neutral organisations that are attempting to provide outcome studies through data analysis on the success of efforts by NGOs such as yours" - more neutral than what - an umbrella group of organisations in sanitation? What are you talking about? JMWt (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drawings

In the edit summary at 2016-08-23T21:43:03 EvMsmile commented,
"I don't think we need such a technical drawing here."

Where building permits are used, the building authority requires a drawing in application for a permit. In this context a drawing is a legitimate and necessary document.

"The photos are clearer for lay people."

Where building permits are used, the population is generally well educated. Many people can read a simple drawing and are involved in work on their residences. Where a drawing is required, a photo is unacceptable. The gallery has only a thumbnail. A small disturbance for lay people and very useful for other people.

"Drawings can be found via the external links"

Currently there are two external links. A search for "drawing" on the Sustainable Sanitation Alliance site yields 57 documents. Most of these documents are for structures of masonry or Portland cement concrete. I found none pertaining to timber frame construction commonly found in North America and parts of Europe. The flickr site also illustrates masonry and concrete construction. Observe that many of the illustrations with dimensions are pictorial; not drawings which would be acceptable in application for a building permit.
The drawing in question is in Wikimedia Commons; not in either of the external sites. Citation in an article in Wikipedia is legitimate. Many Wikipedia articles have a Gallery. I've created a Gallery with the drawing and other illustrations are welcome. Please discuss here before reverting. Thanks, PeterEasthope (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for putting this up for discussion on the talk page. I don't think we need to have a gallery, as the article already has lots of pictures throughout. The drawing that you added is your own drawing, right? It is from a UDDT that hasn't been built like this, right? If we were to add drawings, let's add those of toilets that have actually proven to be good models. We have technical drawings of UDDTs with dimensions, see here: http://www.susana.org/en/resources/library?vbl_2%5B%5D=&vbl_7%5B28%5D=28&vbl_3%5B627%5D=627 So I think we should collect the opinions of others here on the talk page: Firstly, are technical drawings needed for this article (I would say no)?; If the consensus was yes, then which technical drawing would be suitable (I would say those that have actually been used to build UDDTs that have been successful)? EvMsmile (talk) 12:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removed some excessive detail and content

I've just removed some excessive detail and some content that was probably copyright violations. In particular the content from the GIZ publication on UDDTs (it doesn't say anything about its licence in the pdf file so I guess the default would be that it is not a compatible licence). More content should be removed where the text is too much a "how to" or an advocacy piece about what "should" be done. I am the first to admit that some of this kind would have been added by me back in 2014 or so when I first started out on Wikipedia editing (and having a professional background with UDDTs). I am not sure that I'll get around to doing this culling work in the near future so if anyone can help that would be appreciated. EMsmile (talk) 09:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Urine-diverting_dry_toilet"