Talk:HDPE pipe
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Uh isn't this also known as "poly pipe" or "poly tube" ? —Jerome Potts (talk) 08:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC) Jerome - Yes, that's an abbreviated term that loosely applies, however it also applies to many other types of polyethylene pipes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GordonJ86 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Inline tags removal and reasoning edit
Noted and removed some inline tags, which were placed by an editor who was concerned that they may be self-published sources. I can confirm that the sources tagged as such were not published by the editor who referenced them here. If someone from PIPA was referencing self-published sources, this would still not be a violation of WP:SELFPUBLISH as they would be an "established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." 106.68.57.82 (talk) 00:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
- WP:SPS isn't about sources published by the editor who added the content. Good content is good content, no matter who contributes it, although extraordinary steps are sometimes taken with content contributed by editors with a conflict of interest. I don't have a reason to suspect it is the work of a COI editor, though it wouldn't surprise me. It's beside the point.
The tags here refer to the use of non-independent sources. Sources which are essentially identical or extremely partisan with the subject. In this case, an article about a commercial product relies primarily on sources published by manufacturers, distributors or trade associations of that same product. The article is obviously touting the benefits of this commercial product, and presenting tendentious arguments answering common criticisms of the product. An independent expert source would probably not take the same tone or have the same priorities as these non-independent sources. Even if independent sources do say the same things, we nonetheless would prefer to cite them and not trade groups and marketers. Wikipedia is not simply a gloss of press releases. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Note from Author: Thanks Dennis - I wrote the article based on industry knowledge learned while working for a manufacturer. I did not intend to write it as a persuasive article or for marketing purposes, simply wanting to add valuable information to Wikipedia that would help others learn about the product. It is by no means a unique product specifically made by one manufacturer. It is used extensively in Australia and will most likely continue to be used around the world for hundreds of years.
Removed sentence saying "use is banned in many US municipalities for public works projects." edit
I removed the above sentence because I was able to find many US codes for use of HDPE pipe in public works projects. If I'm missing something please put the sentence back. Some examples of code for use:
DoktorScience (talk) 21:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)