Talk:Sanitary sewer

This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Engineering High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Environment High‑importance High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Technology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles Sanitation Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sanitation, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sanitation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SanitationWikipedia:WikiProject SanitationTemplate:WikiProject Sanitationsanitation articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class because it uses a sub-category of [[Category:Environment]] on the article page.

• If you agree with this assessment, please remove this message.
• If you disagree with this assessment, please:

1. Change the above "class=start" to "class=start" or another applicable class per Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Assessment#Quality scale;
2. Remove the stub template from the article.

Hi All! I am planning to add to this page. Is there anyone who is currently updating this page? Cheers, Zhantair — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhantair (talk • contribs) 03:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have it on my watchlist. What are your plans? There is also a related article called

talk) 11:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

I transfered information from

Sewage collection and disposal that seemed suitable to me to this article.--Mll mitch (talk) 10:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

I disagree about merger of this article with

Sewage collection and disposal. 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. The subject of sewage treatment is similarly covered by specific articles explaining the differences between primary and secondary treatment, and the various mechanisms to achieve such treatment. Subject overlap can best be covered with hatnotes and main article links. Thewellman (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

To avoid confusion about the difference between combined sewers and separate sanitary sewers, I have distributed condensed versions of the unsourced information transferred from the sewage collection and disposal article into existing sections of this article. Links to focused information about combined sewers are available in the hatnote above the article lead, in the lead description of the distinction between separate and combined sewers, in the main article link above the History section, and at the evolution description within the History section. Thewellman (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So if the main article about the history of sewers is the one called "combined sewers", should we then take the history section from

I'm unconvinced of the wisdom of merging the history sections -- especially since you prefer to put history at the end of each article. A more useful approach for laymen would be a separate chronologically sequenced article 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. Such an article would include links to focused articles of various types of sewers and treatment or reuse options for those interested in more detail. There would be very little information overlap in a condensed history for each focused article as either an introductory background section describing differences from preceding methods with the motivation for such differences, or (if you prefer) a section at the end of the focused article. Thewellman (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

What you're describing here sounds good (and a lot of work, because currently the history secton is not structured like that). However, I would argue that this should rather be on the article

talk) 02:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

I see no basis for objection to the minor duplication represented by this one-paragraph summary of background information explained in greater detail within other articles. I value additional references, but dates (as opposed to an undated conceptual progression from primitive waste disposal practices to sanitary sewers) may focus on a specific location and be counterproductive to a globalized perspective. I question what differences might be documented in developing countries, or how relevant those differences might be to the benefits of sanitary sewers. It is my perception that developing countries are attempting to follow the example of industrialized western countries because they have similar goals, and I fear removal of the background information for the western precedent may obscure the reasons for separate sewer systems. Thewellman (talk) 06:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My problem starts with the first sentence "Animal feces were plentiful on city streets while animal-powered transport moved people and goods.". What does "were" refer to? When and where? If you have villages in developing countries that have animal-powered transport, don't they still have now plenty of animal feces on the streets? It shows that the sentence is meant to infer developed countries (hence written in past tense) but without making it clear (this is of course a general bias on Wikipedia). - It continues with this sentence "Indoor plumbing was often drained to combined sewers through the 19th century". Well in developing countries, such indoor plumbing is more likely to be discharged to septic tanks, rather than sewers (except outside of the central business district of the capital city). I think the background section should make it clearer where and why and when separate sewer systems were constructed and what the trend is nowadays, e.g. with an emphasis on local infiltration of rainwater as much as possible.

talk) 07:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

I have now tried to make things clearer. Feel free to improve further. I think the flow of thought is more logical now.

talk) 07:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

The present text seems to obscure the background progression:

1 - draft animals defecate on streets

2 - stinking streets are convenient for disposal of household sanitary waste

3 - build combined sewers allowing excrement to be washed off streets

4 - build indoor plumbing to avoid washing sanitary waste off streets

5 - build sewage treatment plants to avoid smelly rivers during dry weather

6 - build storm drains diverting clean surface runoff to increase wet weather treatment efficiency

7 - build separate sanitary sewers to maximize sewage treatment efficiency

Separate sanitary sewers are inefficient duplication unless sewage treatment is a goal. Many developing societies regard waterways as appropriate disposal locations for all manner of waste. Perceived need for sewage treatment tends to be driven by availability of clean water for drinking and surplus water for waste dilution and removal. Water availability may not correlate with use of animal transport. Thewellman (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced that the excreta from the draft animals was the starting point for the development of combined sewers in all or many of the cities. You can also wash that away with open gutters (or manually by sweepers). There were other drivers that gave the push to put all this infrastructure underground... More likely it was more due to the indoor plumbing advent. Do we have more good references that we can quote in this section?

I have separated the background and history sections as suggested earlier. 20th-century cities are cities populated in the 20th century, as opposed to abandoned Inca or Mayan cities, or future cities which may someday be built on what is now sparsely populated land; but I have removed the term to avoid confusingly misplaced modifiers in the last edit. Thewellman (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And why did you delete this: "Maximising local rainwater infiltration, to reduce

I deleted the statement in question because of the text I took the liberty of highlighting. This article is about separate sanitary sewers. The statement might be appropriate in the combined sewer article if a reference citation is provided, but there seems no need for duplication in both articles. Thewellman (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]