Talk:ISO 2852

Is there any merit in including a link to a google image search result as an example of ISO 2852 fittings? Mitch Ames (talk) 07:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe that Google image search for ISO 2852 (under External links) adds any value to the article. Not all of images are relevant to the standard, and those that are offer no useful information; basically they are just pictures of pipes or connectors. I deleted the link (replacing it the ISO catalog link), but DMahalko put it back so that "non-engineers can see what this is without shelling out cash for the standard". However I disagree that the images tell us anything useful about the standard. If we put meaningful content in the article, readers will know what the standard is about (for free). I can't comment on the existing article content, because I don't have a copy of the standard, and I am not familiar with the topic. (DMahalko, perhaps if you cited whatever reference you have got as to the contents of the standard, that would be helpful.)

Can I have a third (fourth, etc) editor's opinion on this please. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

References? We need those? Nah. I worked with ISO 2852 for most of my childhood. I was assigned the job of washing the dairy farm bulk tank before milking. Have to take apart and put together ISO 2852 stainless steel pipeline fittings for every milking and every washing. So while I have never seen the standard, I KNOW what this is.

You deleted the link without explanation. That's bad form for a professional editor. It's almost as bad as not listing references. Tsk tsk.

As far as pictures go, I am likely going to be taking some pictures of that dairy pipeline I've been working with all these years and including them in this article. No, the pictures won't tell you the exact dimensions or properties of the standard but they will show what it looks like, and how it can be used, and that's good enough to me.

If you want comment from other editors, this is the wrong place to ask, as I just created the article and traffic is likely to be low until search engines start finding it. You may not get a response here for a long time.

DMahalko (talk) 06:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Also I do not see what you are so upset about regarding the Google image search. The standard defines a pipe interconnect method. The images show dimensions of the pipe interconnect, the gaskets, two images are cross-sections of the pipe joint, some are tables as images of various dimensional sizes of the interconnect, and everything else shows how the interconnect looks when used in conjunction with valves, meters, and other instruments.

If you don't grasp that understanding from reading the article as I have written it, I don't see how to make this subject matter clearer to you. I expect you will hate my example images as not being technical enough for your personal standards, but I am going to be adding them anyway. DMahalko (talk) 12:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

> I worked with ISO 2852 for most of my childhood.

I refer you to WP:EXPERT which reminds us that personal expertise does not remove the requirement to provide verifiable and reliable sources.

> So while I have never seen the standard, I KNOW what this is.

How do you know - what verifiable reliable source can you cite that taught you about it?

> You deleted the link without explanation. That's bad form

A fair point, and I apologize. I should have noted that I was replacing the link with a reference to a verifiable reliable source.

> As far as pictures go ...

Specific images, appropriately captioned, that meaningfully illustrate the contents of the standard, could be useful. However a large collection of images (as returned by a Google search) - most of which include no indication of how/why the meet the standard - is not useful. Even individual pictures are only useful if the caption explicitly tells in what way they meet the standard. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I think in stead of the google image search results you should pick and chose some of those examples (the good ones) and list those.

Hope that helps, 84.106.26.81 (talk) 12:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The link to the Google image results provides excessive relevant as well as non-relevant images. Since when has a physical item required a 'pool' of 96,000 images to 'choose' from? It's not direct, and it's not in any way professional. Please don't shy away from the task of finding a couple of suitable / representative images (as millions of other editors in as many articles in WP have done!) DS 78.149.179.100 (talk) 13:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Links to search results pages (Google images or otherwise) are forbidden by WP:ELNO item 9. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

DMahalko, if you can provide pictures that you have taken, go ahead! This will be the only solution to provide meaningful images. Don't let the reader sort out which images in a shotgun search are relevant and which are not. Irrespective that such a link would be forbidden by our guidelines anyway. Nageh (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the search links, per WP:ELNO, item 9. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• Qualified disapproval of google material

Firstly folks, a bit less aggro please? I'm a sensitive spirit! I detect some effort at maintaining a polite facade, but the tooth-grinding is unnerving...

The article really needs several pictures (such as indeed, those in the google search) for ignorant people like me, people who have not spent a lifetime in a dairy processing enterprise or something similar. I am interested OK, but uninformed as yet.

Any picture included should have sufficiently informative captions or accompanying text explaining key points to the function and design of the unit in question (otherwise, what is the pic for?)

The fact that someone has known all about the function and design and fundamental principles ever since he was born a fully fledged engineer, may be very encouraging and even impressive, but is not relevant to the article; the whole point is that the article is intended for ignorami such as yours truly, that drool on their bibs and never even realised that there was such a thing as an industrial standard for clamp fittings or whatever. Encyclopedias are not for telling people who know what they know, but for telling people who don't know what they don't know.

I hope to goodness that you have created about a dozen redirections for people who never heard of ISO whatsis, but are looking for info on "Stainless steel clamp", "pipe coupling" and so on. Who on Earth is going to say in effect: "Gee, while thinking about milk lines I got to wondering about ISO 2852; I think I'll see what WP has to say about it..." Why not ISO 1749, while he is about it?

Most of the google pics seem to have been supplied by vendors (surprise!), and accordingly are very good, professional pictures. That should offer options for sources apart from taking pictures yourself. I do in fact recommend strongly that you do take your own pics as well, upload them to Wikimedia commons, and use them, but I am sure that if you were to contact say, a dozen companies and ask them to upload such pics to WM commons, or give you the necessary formal permission to use them, you would get half a dozen hits. After all, the Google pics give you some addresses to contact.

The google hits that you supplied were not bad, but even if they were perfect, remember that whatever you stick into a WP article is a message for the ages (you hope!) That Google material cannot be trusted to hang around indefinitely, and it leaves a very bad taste to follow an external link that has gone away. That is my main objection. So although I think the subject is good and the pictures are good, the link is not at all good. It is worth a bit of legwork to turn the article into something special.

Bottom line: Subject good. (IMO it would be great if the essence of really large volumes of ISO articles could appear in WP, suitably redir'd of course!) Pics OK. Urgency nothing to worry about. But work on getting stable, informative, properly permissioned visual material and captions in place. It is not my line; I am busy mainly on biological subject matter, but I wish you well. JonRichfield (talk) 07:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)