This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Regarding the Problems section: There is obviously a problem with the numbers -I checked the source article, but I'm still not convinced. 20 million gallons reduction is a very small quantity that shouldn't cause any difference (especially not a problem) to any sewage network. That's less than 0.1 gallon per person and per day. I would expect the savings to be at least 10 times -and even in that case, I don't see any real problem. Even the amount of bleach that they state is an indication that there is something wrong with the numbers. I don't know how to handle this, though. Remove the secion, maybe? Cangelis ( talk) 12:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest that the name of this article displays a bias. The industry term is a "high efficiency toilet" and a Google search produced 3,260,000 results while "low flow toilet" produced only 1,880,000 results. Also, the US Environmental Protection Agency sponsors the WaterSense program to encourage adoption of high efficiency toilets, and that is the term they use. This article should be re-named "high efficiency toilet" K8 fan ( talk) 02:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry high efficiency toilet is a far more POV term than low flush toilet. Granted that that both "high efficiency" and "low" are both comparative terms and thus subject to POV. While the industry terms are probably the best choice for an encylopedia, the industry consensus should not necessarily be the final say on the matter considering the boader scope of encyclopedic terminology..because this is not an encyclopedia specific to that industry. As your colleague points out, the industry term in the USA does not even apply to the rest of the world because, for example, in parts of Europe these designs have become so standard that it has simply replaced the generic term "toilet". Since one obvious purpose of this article is to make a distinction between the old versus "improved" design standards(and some of the driving forces that made it revolutionary), I think it should be more appropriate to use the original terms relative to the scope of the article especially where they are culturally relevant. Where specific terms are used in any public hearings etc., and if its necessary due to the changing terminology in various sectors then a specific section may be ideal to track as many of those terms as is necessary and possible for any references to examples and upgrades that have a distinct vocabulary. For example It could be a section called proliferation", "globalization","implementation","standards adoption", "innovations" or such. Because this technology is an upgrade from an original technology and technologies have a tendency to grow and modify rapidly, its unlikely to find a npov term that is also in widespread use, so its most fair in such case to stick with the original terms, whatever they may be,whenever appropriate but make a specific section on trends and the industry changes or effects on the industry and thus the associated terminologies and improvements deviating the original implemented designs. If you start from a basic and efficient modular format then any updates and improvements can be easily incorporated into the article without much overhaul. Thats my theory at least. In any case if its a serious issue about the changing the name or terms for these the devices that should be referenced and should be an issue covered as a specific subject of the article, an example being: chronicling any notable industry and cultural movements or litigation proceedings to actually force a institutional re vocabulary of the device for official or patent related reasons. 73.176.113.121 ( talk) 07:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Phrase | Google Books | Google News | |
---|---|---|---|
"low flow toilet" | 353,000 [1] | 3,370 [2] | 396 [3] |
"low-flow toilet" | 353,000 [4] | 3,000 [5] | 396 [6] |
"low flow toilets" | 247,000 [7] | 3,750 [8] | 3,530 [9] |
"low-flow toilets" | 248,000 [10] | 3,750 [11] | 3,530 [12] |
"low flush toilet" | 75,000 [13] | 1,680 [14] | 134 [15] |
"low-flush toilet" | 75,000 [16] | 1,670 [17] | 134 [18] |
"low flush toilets" | 96,100 [19] | 3,890 [20] | 512 [21] |
"low-flush toilets" | 98,000 [22] | 3,890 [23] | 511 [24] |
"high efficiency toilet" | 153,000 [25] | 330 [26] | 171 [27] |
"high-efficiency toilet" | 154,000 [28] | 330 [29] | 171 [30] |
"high efficiency toilets" | 118,000 [31] | 866 [32] | 565 [33] |
"high-efficiency toilets" | 119,000 [34] | 865 [35] | 565 [36] |
"water efficient toilet" | 12,400 [37] | 178 [38] | 53 [39] |
"water-efficient toilet" | 12,400 [40] | 178 [41] | 53 [42] |
"water efficient toilets" | 39,900 [43] | 404 [44] | 217 [45] |
"water-efficient toilets" | 39,900 [46] | 404 [47] | 217 [48] |
While I'm not fully familiar with the standards of stub-class articles, it became immediately obvious to me that the section of the article was in need of vast grammatical and style improvement..it rather reads like a pamphlet promoting the innovation and one company in particular. I'll make one edit as an example and let others more familiar with the topic do more as they see fit. It took me a couple of readings but I believe I have correctly re-construed the sentence "Although, technology have come along way since then [1993 or the 1980s? not sure which the author meant here so I just did away with the "since then" portion and made it a general statement] and in saving the world and the fresh water supplies. Ultra low-flush toilets that the Swedish company Wostman Ecology have constructed since 1993 years of technology. Is without any doubt the most ecological solution; Eco flush use only 0.6 liters (0.16 gallons) per average flush, Eco Dry and Eco vac(uum) go even lower than that, down to only 0.3 liters per average flush (0.08 gallons)" to be an attempt to say: "Although technologies have come along way in saving and conserving the world's fresh water supplies, Ultra low-flush toilets such as those constructed by the Swedish company Wostman Ecology since 1993, are without any doubt the most ecological solution; Eco flush use only 0.6 liters (0.16 gallons) per average flush, Eco Dry and Eco vac(uum) go even lower than that, down to only 0.3 liters per average flush (0.08 gallons)" I'm not an expert and can't devote the time needed to improve the structure of the paragraph that I have now also probably turned into a run on sentence but its still an improvement from what was there nonetheless...I am by no means certain if I have construed this paragraph correctly but the way it was written, even following this edit, still conveys a strong non neutral statement...and actually,if it were left as originally written, included a completely unverifiable and fanciful statement about "saving the world". I have to assume it was not meant to be read in that way. note I also adjusted the sentence: "In 1988 Massachusetts became the first state in the country to mandate the use of low flow toilets in new construction and remodeling. In 1992, U.S. President George H. W. Bush signed the Energy Policy Act. to read less locally centric manner: "In 1988, Massachusetts became the first state in the U.S.A. to mandate the use of low flow toilets in new construction and remodeling. In 1992, U.S. President George H. W. Bush signed the Energy Policy Act." because relative to the rest of the article it seemed to assume the reader is also located in the USA and would know which country was being referred to in its opening statement, though it would seem obvious with the reference to Massachusetts it would not be so obvious to someone who is not familiar with the state, or which country it belongs to..a simple word change that makes alot of difference. Though it may have been appropriate if the article were already broken down into national and regional sections like I've seen in other wiki articles, it should have as much of a geographically neutral writing style as possible until/if that is implemented. 73.176.113.121 ( talk) 08:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)