Talk:Treatment pond

Constructed wetlands

Why are constructed wetlands not ponds?

Will this distinction be evident to laypersons using the term treatment pond?

Since a pond is a body of standing water, and surface flow wetlands seem to fit within that description, I suggest this page should allow the layperson to decide whether the feature of interest is a waste stabilization pond or a constructed wetland. A wrong guess should be corrected and redirected with an appropriate internal link within the chosen article; but failure to provide the choice on this disambiguation page will inappropriately restrict learning opportunities about constructed wetlands. Thewellman (talk) 22:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

In the wastewater treatment textbooks that I have studied from, ponds are always distinct from constructed wetlands. A pond is more like a lake (hence also the word lagoon), they are usually several metres deep. Constructed wetlands rely on the gravel, roots and plants, not on the large water volume - they are thus much shallower. A free surface flow constructed wetland might look a bit like a pond, OK, but it is normally not classified as that. Actually let's consult the literature and then cite accordingly. I recently saw a new open access textbook on treatment wetlands announced, see here: http://forum.susana.org/36-constructed-wetlands-soil-filters-and-infiltration-beds/21885-new-iwa-open-access-book-treatment-wetlands . In the same series there is also a free open access textbook on waste stabilization ponds (volume 3). I think when you look through those you'll see that a treatment wetland is not classified as a pond. When I have more time I will also browse through both and see if I can find an exact reference. Compromise idea: One option could be to say. "Free surface constructed wetlands may have a similar visual appearance to maturation ponds (a type of waste stabilization pond) but are not usually classified as "treatment ponds" in the technical literature)." EMsmile (talk) 11:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the suggested technical definitions, but this is the wrong place to anticipate readers with that understanding. A surface flow wetland is intended for wastewater treatment, and laypersons may identify its shallow standing water as a pond. This is a disambiguation page intended to offer possible interpretations to people unfamiliar with the technical nuances found in textbooks and technical literature. The suggested compromise language would be entirely appropriate for either the constructed wetland article or the waste stabilization pond article; but it doesn't belong here in the simple sentence with a single internal link to move readers to the appropriate definition. Thewellman (talk) 17:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I really think we cannot put constructed wetlands into the same bullet point list as the others, following a sentence saying this: "Different types of treatment ponds use different mechanisms". This would imply that a constructed wetland DOES belong into the treatment pond category, whereas it doesn't. There could be many other things that look like a treatment pond but is not. E.g. oxidation ditches. Or stormwater retention ponds; roadside ditches, anything where water can collect and be stagnant. So why single out constructed wetlands here as the one that doesn't belong? Then you should list all the others as well. I think putting it into a second bullet point list might work. Otherwise we are really giving the wrong impression that constructed wetlands fall into the same category as waste stabilization ponds which they definetely don't. - Let's look for a third opinion here, how about User:Velella? EMsmile (talk) 22:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I suspect that we may be over thinking this issue. To me, disambiguation pages simply list those articles which might reasonably be confused by a lay-person or provide alternative avenues of investigation when a reader has failed to locate the expected subject matter. In these scenarios, the technical distinction between the categorisation, how things work, what things do and their interrelationship (or lack of same) seems to me not relevant. I take the point about the technological differences and the functional differences but my tendency would be lump them all into a single alphabetical list and let the reader choose the most appropriate. For what little it may be worth, I would also include flood storage pond (when we have such an article) , bank side reservoirs and similar just for completeness. I would prefer to be inclusive in a disambig page, then we have covered all the bases rather than leave a reader out on a limb. Just a very minor point, but isn't providing that link to an open access text book just a little bit COI ? Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Velella, always good to get a further opinion. Yes, I think it would be good to add other similar things like you suggested. The page currently doesn't look like a disambiguation page but looks like "more". A normal disambiguation page looks in my opinion like this for example: CBS (disambiguation). Then it is purely a listing without trying to provide "content". - I don't understand your point about COI? I mentioned that textbook because there are not many open access wastewater treatment textbooks out there. Why would it be COI? I didn't author that book if that's what you mean? EMsmile (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I've expanded the second list to include the pond types suggested by Velella; but I'm inclined to prefer that user's single list suggestion. I'm still puzzled by the resistance to listing constructed wetlands with treatment ponds. Perhaps some languages or varieties of English regard sequential words like constructed wetland or treatment pond as equivalent to single nouns, like constructedwetland or treatmentpond. Most English-speakers I have encountered regard such combinations as a noun preceded by an adjective to differentiate it from other objects described by the same noun. I wouldn't include constructed wetland among the relatively few two word combinations recognized widely enough to avoid confusion with the generalized adjective plus noun usage. When I look through the list of English nouns describing wet places with aquatic plants, pond seems the most popular, followed by marsh (about half as often), then fen, bog, swamp, and mire rank ahead of wetland (used about 1/7 as often as pond). So if a person unfamiliar with the term wetland would be most likely to regard a surface flow wetland as a type of pond, it seems reasonable to list it among the ponds defined by Merriam-Webster as standing water smaller than a lake, and described by Clegg as usually containing shallow water with marsh and aquatic plants. Perhaps we might consider making a redirect from treatment marsh to surface flow wetland and from treatment mire and treatment fen to subsurface flow wetland. Treatment bog seems inconsistent with nutrient-rich waste flows, but I have seen a proposal for growing trees for conversion to wood products on what would technically be a constructed treatment swamp. Thewellman (talk) 08:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Fine by me. My suggestion would be to make it a more true disambiguation page, that's why I have just made 2 edits which simplify the page. See if you agree with those? I would suggest to also remove the two sub-bullet points that are below "waste stabilisation pond", or move them up a level so that they are bullet points just like the others. Also I guess it should be put into alphabetical order now? Another suggestion: Perhaps the name of the article should be changed to "Treatment pond (disambiguation)"?. About the proposed redirects, that's fine by me (I hadn't heard of "mire" and "fen" before, but sure why not). (and yes, I tend to think of it as "treatmentpond" and "constructedwetland", just like "wastewater") EMsmile (talk) 09:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

For a brief (and humorous) introduction to mires and fen, you might like to have a look at this - especially the final category - "bogginess". Oh and by the way, I too agree that a conventional disambig page structure is the way to go, and I approve of the most recent edits which are symptomatic of that approach. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. Perhaps a Canadian editor will comment on the possibilities of constructed treatment muskeg. Global warming may improve wastewater treatment options in permafrost areas.Thewellman (talk) 01:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone have an opinion about my other suggestions? I would suggest to also remove the two sub-bullet points that are below "waste stabilisation pond", or move them up a level so that they are bullet points just like the others. Also I guess it should be put into alphabetical order now? Another suggestion: Perhaps the name of the article should be changed to "Treatment pond (disambiguation)"?. EMsmile (talk) 12:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I am neutral about all of those changes. I question the efficiency of the last proposal. I see no functional difference except the unused title without (disambiguation) would then become available for an article describing another variant. If the only goal is conformity, we should weigh the benefits of ignoring all rules with respect to expanded description of differences between the disambiguated ponds. Thewellman (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, I see your point now about the title of the article. Let's leave it as is then. OK, then I plan to remove the two sub-bullet points that are below stabilization pond and put everything in alphabetical order. Is that OK by everyone? EMsmile (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)