Jump to content

Talk:Irrigation/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

I deleted the link added by 24.243.202.220 for the following reasons: 1) seems to be a vanity web page - how I installed my sprinkler system 2) a homeowner might get a "few" good ideas from this website, but they may just as well get a lot of erroneous ideas. "Only use 1" or 3/4" schedule 40 pipe" is useless. No information about head spacing, hydraulics, pipe sizing. 3) while some of the demands made by this homeowner of the contractor were not unreasonable, when one expects extra, one should expect to pay extra. No contractor that wants to stay in business could afford to do such a project for $2000. 4) a much better resource is the IA's Irrigation Consumer's Bill of Rights

H2O 03:10, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Photo replacement

I reverted a photo added by User:Fir0002. I consider it rather rude to bump someone else's photo with your own, unless the present photo is clearly inferior. In all my time on wikipedia, I've only replaced one photo to my memory and that was with apologies to the photographer. Generally if a topic is well illustrated, and you have a good photo you'd like to add, there are other topics that could use the same illustration. In this case Fir0002 did this by placing his photo on lawn. Pollinator 16:59, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Agrivision

There was also an alternative, low-pressure subterrainean irrigation system proposed at the agrivision conference (https://agrivision.com/) don't know how it differed from drip lines dough, can't find article no more neither; was imortant dough

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Irrigation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Irrigation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Irrigation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Value of ON content and quality of reference

The content added and reference to the ON article has been removed. A conversation is ongoing here. Uriah923 06:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Overirrigation and Deep Percolation

This would appear to constitute more serious problems than just waste of water - such as leeching and groundwater pollution (where chemicals are applied at least). Article should address this.--ChrisJMoor 02:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep, you are correct - this article needs this and a whole bunch more. By the way, the correct term is leaching, which is actually done on purpose in many cases to flush out salts. I'll try to start spending more time on this article rather than the more peripheral topics. H2O 06:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Aye. I know leaching has its virtues provided it is not excessive: I recycle the water that percolates down to the drip trays of my pot plants during the growing season while fertilising them ad libitum. Then I let the soil leach freely by removing the drip trays in the winter and continuing full watering for a week or two. Works very nicely.--ChrisJMoor 01:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Medicine?

In medicine, irrigation is the cleansing of a wound with sterile liquid. This seems worth mentioning somewhere, don't you think? 195.33.207.23 14:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

(Note that there are already pages for such topics as nasal irrigation and colonic irrigation. 195.33.207.23 14:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC))

opinion, we should create a separate article for medical irrigation.

MDPE and HDPE

MDPE is used all over europe. checkout [1] they produce pipe and fitting second largest manufactuer in the world. --Ccknowles 21:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Restructuring of the page content

I restructured the site because I found it not common to consider Types of irrigation, Sprinkler Irrigation, Center-pivot irrigation etc. on the same hierarchy level (level-2 header). Additionally all this was published in the overview section. Therefore this overview section was spanning almost half of the whole page. The categorization of the different irrigation methods is now consistent to the glossary published in the FAO-paper (reference 11). However, to my opinion the web site is still focussing very much on technical details of the different irrigation methods while others (e.g. importance of irrigation for food security, water use in irrigation, benefits and drawbacks of irrigation) should be discussed more in detail. --Stefan Siebert 11:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Nominating for good article status

I'm impressed by this article! It's well referenced, has excellent illustrations and is nicely organized.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 01:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

GA review

I have several suggestions

  • Cite the section "How an in-ground irrigation system works"
  • I don't get the organization for "Types of irrigations". You have several different types, but then those types have sub-types as well.
  • You should format the text and location of pictures to prevent gas and keep the article looking smooth.

Other than this, there are sufficient references for most of the article, and the pictures look great. Keep working, this article looks almost ready for GA status. Good friend100 13:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, when comparing this article against the Good Article criteria, it falls short of the criteria by several key areas, and cannot be listed at this time. There are some serious issues with organization, as well as with reference citations. The prose is also a bit choppy in some areas, and could use some improvement; a good copyedit. On the plus side, I don't see any major problems with stability or neutrality, although the last paragraph of the history section doesn't seem to address modern uses of irrigation as much, and focuses more on some environmental issues instead, which is a minor NPOV issue.

Most of the images seem to meet the criterion for images, although there are a few issues. First, the drip irrigation image has two conflicting image copyright tags (one states that it is public domain, and the other states that it is copyrighted). It looks like it came from Jain irrigation, and it's quite possibly copyrighted; if it's used under permission, then that must be stated in the image description somewhere. It would help if the correct image copyright tag was provided, and/or a fair use rationale included if necessary.

Also, try to avoid placing images on both the right and left sides of the page at equal vertical levels, with text in between; for individuals with smaller monitors or display settings, this can look quite crowded, and in some cases, unreadable. It might also be an indication that there's not enough text, which could be an issue with completeness.

What's the purpose of the 'Salinity from irrigation' image in the 'see also' section. It appears to be placed in a gallery, and there's no description of how this relates to the topic. As a general rule, images should not be placed in a 'see also' section; that section should only be used for internal wikilinks to related articles. Furthermore, only links to articles that have not been used previously in the article should be listed in 'see also'; this might help reduce the list.

The article is overall seriously deficient on reference citations, a serious problem with criterion 2 of the GA criteria. Any information which is challenged or likely to be challenged, should have an inline citations. Any hard data and facts and figures should also have a source. The history section overall seems quite well sourced (and reasonably well written as well). That's what other sections should look like.

What are 'academic resources'? The section doesn't seem to make sense. If you want to list a couple of extra resources that are not cited by article text, the proper form is to put them into a 'further reading' section, located immediately after the 'references' section, but before 'external links'. If these resources are citing information in the article, then they should be included as inline citations instead, and not under 'further reading'.

The lead section is overall too short, and not very well written. The section is kind of choppy, and awkward. I would also move the image in the lead to the immediate top-right, with no text above. Put the portal link immediately below the image. It might help to review WP:LEAD for tips on improving this section.

There's some serious organizational issues in the article. First, a lot of the section and subsection headers are quite long, and could be shortened to be more concise and better describe the content. The article title should also not appear in subsection headers, per manual of style. So 'History of irrigation' can be shortened to simply 'History'. 'Present extent of irrigation' doesn't really need its own main section; I would suggest combining it into the 'history' section. The 'Sources of irrigation water' is a good idea, but is very short, and doesn't really cover the topic completely, and lacks reference citations. I would move the 'sources' section to just after 'history' but before 'types', as it would help to cover information on its sources first, before information on what types of irrigation there are.

'Problems in irrigation' is just a bulleted list; it would help to complete this section by including some prose and look up information in sources and cite them.

With respect to the 'How an in-ground irrigation system works' section; I don't think it's exactly relevant 100% to this article. It seems to cover how a modern irrigation system works in a typical suburban household, and not so much how an agricultural irrigation system works. It should probably be rewritten completely and condensed into a subsection in the 'types' section, talking about its specific type of irrigation system. Don't focus too much on how it works as much as describing the specific type of system. Wikipedia isn't a 'how to' manual. It definitely needs sources.

I see that irrigation with respect to its use in the medical/dental fields is briefly mentioned in the lead. While I generally think that this article should focus on the agricultural uses of irrigation, it might be better to either search for or create an article on the medical uses of irrigation, and link to it as a disambiguation link at the very top of the article.

These are the major issues with the article as I see them. The list is very likely not complete, but hopefully this information will provide some insight into how to improve the article to eventually meeting the Good Article criteria. Good luck! Dr. Cash 08:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This is great--a very helpful analysis of the article's quality. I actually feel stupid now for not seeing the problems you identified when I hastily nominated this for GA status; there's a lot of low-quality articles that could benefit from your meticulous eye... Thanks for the review.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Information

From my knowledge, the two photos that are listed under sprinkler, are actually guns, used on many farms in the UK. I won't change it just in case I am mistaken. Just thought I would point it out. --SawdayG (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Natural irrigation techniques

A natural irrigation technique, (not yet described is) using plain polyester ropes combined with a prepared ground mixture to water plants from a vessel filled with water. The ground mixture would need to be made depending on the plant itself, yet would mostly consist of black potting soil, vermiculite and perlite. This system would (with certain crops) allow you to save expenses as it does not consume any electricity and only little water (unlike sprinklers, water timers, ...). However, it may only be used with certain crops (probably mostly larger crops that do not need a humid environment; perhaps e.g. paprika's).

Links Automatic, natural plant watering system:

Please include in the article. UPDATE: I'm already putting it into the article KVDP (talk) 09:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC) Thanks.

PS: There are also other natural irrigation techniques, eg using stones to catch water from humid air (practiced in the Canary Islands (eg Lanzarote, in vineyards/wine farms) and using ground level differences (making a 'stairs' to decrease water evaporation in sunny countries (practiced in subtropics as Mali, Senegal, ...) This latter is a sort of [[Terassing|terassing], yet its used to conserve water rather than flatten the terrain. KVDP (talk) 09:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Also mention the Nabataeans which had ceramic pipeline irrigation, also mention Jacob Blaustein Institute which also conducts research to these nabataeans irrigation techniques
in order to make low-cost irrigation systems to cope with the flooding periods (strange but true). It will help in preserving the rain that falls in these periods to water the crops for a great amount of time. Eg ceramic pipelines/terracotta canals can be a low cost solution

see http://desert.bgu.ac.il/desert/EngSite.aspx?SiteId=3327&ItemId=4945 http://www.hackwriters.com/Nabataeans.htm http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/pdf/petra_guide.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.180.114 (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Soaker hoses

Since we don't have a separate article, this seems to be a good place to put a paragraph on soaker hoses. (Sorry can't DIY it. We don't even have a system at home.) 76.97.245.5 (talk) 06:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Preventing water evaporation

A new section should mention how to prevent water evaporation. See the http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/09/soil/mann-text.html Also mention the cordons pierreux system and zaï-system. (see article) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.187.57 (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Watering

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus for move — ækTalk 07:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


Irrigation → Watering — I propose to move the article to watering. Irrigation is a word that can only be used with the watering of plants, meaning that the article could be possibly expanded if watering is used instead. In addition, watering is more clear (eg the supplying of water). Irrigation could possibly also be mistaken with the supplying of liquid fertiliser (water + fertilizer). KVDP (talk) 09:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose: At 33Kb the article does not have that much headroom for possible expansion: see WP:SIZE. "Irrigation" is by far the most common term for the topic, in comparison to the gerund "watering", which is used for the action ("especially by pouring or sprinkling with a watering-can, hose, or the like; to pour or sprinkle water"— OED) --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose: wrong on every single count. "Irrigation is a word that can only be used with the watering of plants" - not true, look up eye irrigation. "watering is more clear" - not true, to most English speakers it refers to what you do to pot-plants, not fields. "Irrigation could possibly also be mistaken with the supplying of liquid fertiliser" - this is not a "mistake", this is a natural use of the term. And to cap it off, Old Moonraker's point about article expansion is well-grounded. Knepflerle (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Chaos Oppose per Knepflerle. "Irrigation" is the most common word for the subject in English. Tevildo (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).==Missing== Some missing items: in the china section, mention of the china weirs and tunnel through mountain, are perhaps not the largest or longest very early irrigation, as satellite overviews reveal a 1,500 miles long set of tunnels into the western deserts built at the same or similar time... perhaps also by Qin/Zao. And in South America, the hugely longer irrigation canels, aquaducts for 100s of miles esp in Peru are not covered ... at all /well. /x/ irri gay 9 !!24.186.56.245 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Residential Flood Irrigation ?

I have been in and around the irrigation industry for over 25 years and I have never seen a residential flood irrigation system. I have heard of a couple, but as far as I know, they are experimental. This photo instead looks like a passive rain garden, designed to catch runoff from rainfall. I notice that the neighbor's yard is also somewhat flooded. Irrigation is the supplemental application of water. It is not the same as catching rainwater. More information would be helpful, instead of just a photo. H-2-O (talk) 17:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

apparently this is a thing in Phoenix. H-2-O (talk) 04:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Uses of types

I think there should be mentions of what uses of the types of irrigation mentioned in the article. The crops and situations for these methods should be mentioned in the article.

I agree that different types of irrigation are best practiced for different applications. For example, sub surface drip for row crops and center pivot for field crop. However, there is so much "crossover" that it would be tough to fully delineate which specific type of irrigation is most often used for which type of crop. Furthermore, to suggest one type of irrigation modality for an application will undoubtedly lead to argument from the manufacturers watching this entry. Tom Kruer

(many years later) There probably should be something about what types of crops tend to use drip irrigation (for water savings). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

pitcher irrigation

i think there should be something about pitcher irrigation, or pot irrigation, i don't understand how to make changs or add things well enough to do it, i am pretty new to wikipedia and still find it a bit confusing, but pitcher irrigation is a very old technique that has been practiced in many countries and is still being usd in many arid regions some links that talk about it are here

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Siyal1990 (talk • contribs) 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Irrigation/Archive_1&oldid=1117119882"