Talk:Storm drain

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Storm drain article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Water

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Water, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Water supply-related subjects 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.WaterWikipedia:WikiProject WaterTemplate:WikiProject WaterWater articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Environment

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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.

Untitled[edit]

I think people would be interested to know what the effects on local municipalities or the environment there would be if there was a fuel spill into the storm drains, such as a tanker overturning on the highway. Aplomado 22:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheet Drain Application?[edit]

Does anyone know/ has anyone ever heard of an application for sheet or strip drain in a storm water management capacity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.130.14.90 (talk) 14:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

Water quality section should be upgraded to remove lead from the list of pollutants. Since the removal of lead from motor vehicle fuel, lead concentration on roadways has reduced to almost non-existant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.39.94 (talk) 19:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although lead concentrations have been reduced by eliminating the particulate nature of tetraethyl lead deposition, lead remains a factor of urban runoff because of continuing use of lead-alloy wheel weights which become detached and abraded by traffic. The wheel weights themselves settle in low points in storm drains and are subject to chemical dissolution by organic acids formed during decomposition of leaves and grass trimmings. Lead may also be released by overfilling lead-acid batteries or breakage of those battery cases during collisions.Thewellman (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Naming convention[edit]

In the UK such conduits are also known as Storm Drains/Sewers. I am unaware of any use of the term "well" in this context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.146.198 (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, is the word "catch basin" or catchbasin"? Both spellings have been used here. The word/s must be consistent.CivEngAlyssa (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article (especially the lead paragraph) is becoming so cluttered with local naming conventions that the overall focus is obscured. Can we agree the subject is a system of constructed subterranean drainage features (as opposed to natural percolation and limestone caverns) intended to convey precipitation and snowmelt, with the specific exclusion of domestic sewage and industrial wastewater? Perhaps a subsection on nomenclature might be appropriate for focus on differing naming conventions. Thewellman (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of that source to a book from 1995?[edit]

Hi User:Thewellman, I had deleted this source: King, James J. (1995). The Environmental Dictionary (Third Edition ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 0-471-11995-4 because I don't think we should have a "source" separate from "references". As far as I can see, this source was not cited anywhere. If it was, there should be an inline citation. Why give so much prominence to a dictionary from 20 years ago, is it really that important? If yes, it should either have an inline citation or it should be given as "Further reading" but I can't see why it needs to be there at all? Can you please explain since you reverted my edit here, thanks. EvM-Susana (talk) 10:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source is cited (twice) in the nomenclature section using author and page notation for inline citations to avoid repetition of the text completely describing the document once in the Source section. Additional documents may be similarly included in response to the citations requested for British English nomenclature. While I agree a more recent document might be preferable, the perceived significance of differences between English dialects indicates nomenclature persists longer than other aspects of technology. I encourage editors to substitute citations from more modern references if they can be found, but a citation from an old reference is better than no reference citation. Thewellman (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, I overlooked that. However, as it only appears twice, I think it should be cited in the normal way so that it simply appears under references and not also under "source" giving it undue weight. I can make that change if you agree with me. EvM-Susana (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am neutral about reference citation format, if you want to make the change; but repetition could become more significant if additional English dialect differences are suggested. Thewellman (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Actually I find the section on "terminology" needs further work to explain if these terms are synonyms or what they are. Perhaps the use of a table could help here.EvM-Susana (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have set up a table now under "terminology" please check. I think it's much better than that bullet point list that was there before.