Talk:Firestop

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Firestop 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

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Firefighting Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firefighting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to firefighting on Wikipedia! If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.FirefightingWikipedia:WikiProject FirefightingTemplate:WikiProject FirefightingFirefighting articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Anonymous edits

see: http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?pagetitle=firestop --Achim (talk) 04:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by editor

I went in to attempt a clean up of this, including formatting, but it's a mass of technical jargon and legal speach that to the the average reader would be completely non-understandable and unenlightening. I think what it needs is an engineer or architect to completely rewrite it in less technical terms and with more of a focus on what a firestop does and how it does it rather than the technical background of building codes and such. Lendorien 01:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will edit this text for more clarity shortly, but the notion of having an engineer or architect re-write this problematic. Firestopping does not form part of the curriculum of any architect or engineering schools. The history of firestops, as linked at the bottom of the page originally tells the tale. Even fire protection engineers are no experts when it comes to this topic. Also, the technical "jargon" is something that I endeavour to make clear and provide definitions for. The fact is, from long experience, that people do not look up these topics out of general interest. It simply does not happen. Nobody cares remotely about fire protection unless there is a strong self-interest, which either mean the person is in the business or in the market for some of it or is attempting to get out of the responsibility of having to buy and install some. The fact is that those who do in fact have an interest need to be aware of very specific information, which necessarily includes terms that are common to standards and codes. To stray away from that specific terminology is really only harmful. However, I will endeavour to make some of this clearer. The editing on the part of my critic above already contains serious errors, which means I can certainly improve on the matter and I will do so shortly.--Achim 00:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When the images are wrapped properly, as now, they wander off the end of the page. There are more inches of image than there are of text. Which are most valuable? Can we lose a few? I don't know enough on this subject to cut them myself, I just like formatting. Rissa 19:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A picture tells a thousand words. Firestopping is a large and misunderstood topic and the source for plentiful code violations, which endanger lives and property every day. This article and its pictures hit many of the important points, which are useful for those who actually have to do the toil or deal with it in any fashion. The entirety also helps debunk a few common errors made in the field. It would be advisable to understand the topic prior to editing. If you would like to understand the topic better, you can go through some of the links there, or start here: http://www.geocities.com/astximw. --Achim 18:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by SMS

This page lacks a neutral POV. There's a lot of material that seems motivated more by "which union gets paid for what" and "whose responsibility is it when firestops don't work correctly" rather than being actual information about firestops, how they are designed, how they work, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.83.160.121 11:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to echo the original comments. Firstly, it is commended that an editor is willing to put in a significant amount of time and effort on an article subject. It is nice to see some good quality content generation rather than the usual edit-warring that seems to preoccupy so much time these days on WP. Unfortunately though when I read through this article it reads too much like a fire safety lecture/manual. The "Common Problems and Solutions" section is out of a training manual and not at all in an encyclopaedic style - 36 heavily captioned pictures and a narrative style that makes me wonder if I by reading all of the text I am going to get some sort of fire safety qualifications out of it. Since Achim seems to be the principle editor on the article my comments are aimed as a bit of friendly commentary to you, by shaping the content into a more encyclopaedic tone you will make it less likely that someone else will come along in the future and do it instead (as is probable given this is a wiki and nobody owns the content). Coincidentally, you might be interested in Wikibooks - it would give you an opening to fully expand upon your area of expertise in a more appropriate structure. Best Wishes, SFC9394 20:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up

I performed a general clean up for encyclopedic style, reflecting the comments above by SFC9394, Lendorien, and 206.83.160.121.

Although I removed several redundant essay-like passages for the avdocation of using a single contractor for the installation of fire stops, I did leave the text of the initial passage regarding this issue, as I completely agree with Achim's position on this point, and I back him up on this. Although I know it to be true from personal experience, this aspect of the chain of contract documents through installation to generating quality is going to be difficult to provide with WP:SOURCE. I will search for it in trade journals.

I also removed links which pointed directly to the website of a trade union. Perhaps there is no better wnay to refer to a contruction trade, but I think we should try and find a more general reference ot the trade as opposed to the union of the trade. Maybe we should add it back in the "External Links" section?

I think the pictures add to the article, and I removed some references in the captions regarding where and when they were taken. This should be reflected on the image link unless the location or time are needed for understanding of the concept. Fireproeng (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL

This article is made of angry inspector and WIN 75.94.154.157 (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what is it with the upsession with firestops on wikipedia. Seems every construction article is full of pictures citing deficiencies in firestops as if it has anything to do with the article itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 6leggedcow (talk • contribs) 01:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needs copywriting for tone etc.

As per discussions above in this talk page, still an issue (if not more so) several years later. W n C? 10:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Proposal - Packing (firestopping)

No consensus. Miniapolis 23:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose that Packing (firestopping) be merged into Firestop. The content in the Packing (firestopping) article can easily be explained in the context of Firestop, and the Packing (firestopping) article is of a reasonable size in which the merging of Firestop will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Kilmer-san (talk) 04:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the merger. Packing is a distinct component deserving of its own article. Where would we draw the line? There are many different materials and products used in firestopping. Each one can have an article for itself. To put that into this generic one would make the whole thing unnecessarily long. --Achim (talk) 19:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger proposal - Mortar (firestop)

No consensus. Miniapolis 23:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose that Mortar (firestop) be merged into Firestop. I think that the content in the Mortar (firestop) article can easily be explained in the context of Firestop, and the Mortar (firestop) article is of a reasonable size in which the merging of Mortar (firestop) will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Kilmer-san (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

all the items proposed to be merged are distinct items in construction specifications like National MasterFormat by CSI. They should be kept separate because otherwise it will be harder to navigate.--12.4.192.201 (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose merging firestop mortar in with firestopping in general. Firestopping is very diverse to begin with. Each material has its own set of issues that deserve their own articles.--Achim (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger proposal - Mortar (firestop)

No consensus. Miniapolis 23:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose that Sleeve (construction) be merged into Firestop. I think that the content in the Sleeve (construction) article can easily be explained in the context of Firestop, and the Sleeve (construction) article is of a reasonable size in which the merging of Sleeve (construction) will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Kilmer-san (talk) 01:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the merger. Sleeves have a distinct set of issues that would overburden the generic firestop article. --Achim (talk) 19:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I started to add a merger proposal template to Packing (firestopping) and then noticed other related merger proposals. I think Packing (firestopping), Mortar (firestop), Annulus (firestop), and Sleeve (construction) should all be merged. These articles are basically definitions which belong in Wiktionary or viable as a section in Firestop, they are not notable enough to have their own articles and will never be more than stubs. There are almost no references between all of these articles combined. Jim Derby (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.