Talk:Convectant drying

Proposed merge

It's not clear that there's anything here that deserves an article of its own; much of the text overlaps with better coverage already present at Clothes dryer and Dehumidifier. If there is anything here worth saving it should be merged, then I think this page should become a redirect to one or the other (or deleted).

This is a small page with few editors, so if anyone agrees with this proposal (and there are no dissenters), I'd say go ahead and do the merge.

Cheers, Vectro (talk) 10:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Agree. I would hope the text would be cleaned up before being integrated elsewhere, but I do agree this article is not of much use as-is.  Frank  |  talk  11:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Disagree This is a process, NOT a type of equipment like the articles mentioned. Low quality of this article doesn't make it movable alone. At best those articles could have a paragraph or two summing this up, to point back here. Reduce this down or delete and have someone start over, but a merge seems not sensible to me. Ingolfson (talk) 13:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

   Understand that a merge is different from a delete. If someone wants to add content to this page afterwards about the process, that'd be fine. But the content that is here now does not belong here; it belongs either at Clothes dryer or at Dehumidifier. That's the idea; to move the content here to there, and then make this a redirect. If someone wants to afterwards make this not a redirect in order to discuss the process, that has no impact on the decision to merge (or not). Vectro (talk) 03:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

3. AgreeDjupp (talk)
4. Convectant drying is already listed and described in the Clothes Dryer page. What exists seems valid and sufficient. The top banner for discussion seems like it could be removed. (talk) 01:30, 13 October 2009

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 10:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Water Damage Restoration Industry Approach

The main thrust of this page is to show the benefits of convectant drying over other methods of water damage restoration. Particularly, Convectant Drying Trailers are used for rapid drying of large structures damaged by water. It has little to do with Clothes dryers or Dehumidifier. I think the use of "convectant" in the clothes dryer article is a little misleading, except that heat and moving air are used to accelerate drying. The purpose of the Convectant drying page is where whole buildings or structures are to be dried out. Or where Accelerated drying is applied in an industrial/commercial setting. The link to the Food industry is because many industrial processes in the food industry require removal of large quantities of water. That would probably fall under Accelerated drying, Freeze-drying, wood drying, grain drying, drying (food) and related industrial processes.

I added links and related terms to show where this technology fits in the industry. There are industry certification bodies, training institutes, standards efforts and established corporations in the restoration industry. Perhaps we need a page on Restoration Industry or Water damage restoration industry. RC711 (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

The article lacks a balanced and uninvolved view on this method, it is apparently based on the developer's own research and presentations (which makes an unbiased description even more difficult of course). It also needs truely independent non-promotional sources. Furthermore, the article fails to mention any possible drawbacks or critical assessments of this approach (I am no expert, but a quick Google search shows that this method had or still has its critics). GermanJoe (talk) 11:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)