Talk:Air source heat pumps

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Physics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.

Help with this template

Comments:
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Physics because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{Physics}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{Physics}} template, removing {{Physics}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

Contents

[edit] NPOV Improvements

I've rewritten the "benefits" list to remove what I believed were a number of misleading or trivial advantages, most of which were extremely vague or applied to basically all heaters. Also, a number of the entries appeared to be simply statements of the range of heat pump systems available from one particular supplier. I've also been a bit more conservative with the efficiency claims, saying 300% to 400%, rather than just 400%, based on a link I found which seems a little more trustworthy than an advertisement. If there's any concerns about any of the changes, please feel free to note it here. Otherwise I'll attack the second half of the article later.Plasma (talk) 12:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Further response to Copyrighted material used

Hi Plasma, Totally agree 100% with all of your comments, thanks for your assistance with this article.

[edit] Further response to Copyrighted material used

Hi Plasma, The source of all text provided has been uploaded with the permission of the original source, does this satisfy your copyright question? The original copyrighter is Phil Moore who is a leading authority in the UK for Heat Pump technology. Regarding your statement that many of the claims are wrong please contact me with any incorrect statements or as I have stated before please edit as you see fit within your expertise. The example that you have provided is technically correct and not meant to be misleading. Please understand that the intention is to provide an accurate, if positive overview of air source heat pumps which replaced 2 lines of text. It is not to mislead people at all. In response to the advert statement I so understand your point and again if you wish to de-commercialise the article then please do so. We have to start somewhere and I am glad that I posted the original article as wiki had nothing on this subject at all. At this rate by the end of the week we will hopefully have an article which has been edited and added too by many people and the end result would satisfy all (I hope). Maybe a wiki statement that offers people to edit further is a good step. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.92.69 (talk) 11:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, based on what you've said there certainly isn't a copyright problem. One has to be careful, because there's a big difference between being "out of copyright" and "used with permission". The page you were working from was copyrighted, so in the absence of any permission the excessive copy/pasting of it was copyright infringement. However, now that you've clarified that there was specific permission for its use, there's no problem. As for the remainder of the issues, I certainly agree that this article is something that is needed, and that you've got it off to a great start. I'm not for a second proposing that it be deleted wholesale, simply that it be reworked to change its tone to be more neutral, rather than sounding like it's trying to sell heat pumps. In the meantime, the normal procedure is to have the advert tag. The advert tag is very specifically *not* an allegation of spam (there's a spam tag for that), it's simply a marker saying "this article is a work in progress that needs to be converted to a more neutral tone" (Indeed, the tag itself very specifically says that). For that reason, I think it's a bit better the tag be left up for now, just so we're open that it needs work and is currently a bit one-sided. Once the article has reached a stage where one can be satisfied that it is reasonably neutral, the tag can be removed. Does that sound reasonable? As for improving the article, I'll start a separate talk thread about the possible errors, or misleading statements, that I think exist, so hopefully we can get this article done just as you've proposed. Plasma (talk) 12:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Copyrighted material used

Hi, This article has been uploaded on Air Source Heat Pumps to provide a foundation which can be expanded on further. The article is free of copyright and replaces a two line sentence on the subject. I have tried to keep the article factual and it does portray air source heat pumps in a positive light. I am happy for other people (including you) to expand on the article and provide any form of balanced input. The article is designed to raise awareness of air source heat pumps as previous to the article there was no information on this subject matter at all. The focus of the article is mostly factual in focus though the key benefits section could be classed as an advertisement. In this instance the benefits section is an attempt to focus on the environmental benefits rather than a commercial one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexiconnect (talk • contribs) 09:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Lexiconnect, I completely appreciate that your revision of the article replaces what was a very small stub, but that doesn't mean that you should remove advertisement and copyright tags if they apply. The page you appear to have copied largely verbatim is NOT free of copyright (at least from what I can see). The mere fact there isn't a copyright notice on the page does not mean you are entitled to simply copy it. Also, the content is extremely one-sided as you have noticed. Many of the claims are indeed completely wrong. For example, saying that heat pumps produce "100% less CO2 emissions than fossil fuelled systems when used in conjunction with 'green' electricity such as wind farm or tidal origins." is the most misleading statement I have ever seen. *ANY* heating system that is powered by green electricity is going to produce 100% less CO2 emissions than a fossil fueled system, it's nothing to do with heat pumps. Given this, and that the page you have taken a large part of your content from is, in fact, advertising heat pumps, it's completely fair to have an advertisement tag. Having copyright and advert tags on the page are not conclusive findings, but an invitation for others to take a look at the article and fix the potential problems. I'm apparently not the only person who thinks they should be there, as I didn't originally add them. Please do not leap to remove them just because you wrote the article, when they certainly have just cause to be there. Plasma (talk) 09:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyrighted material used

All material in this article seem sto have come from the linked site. See for example: http://www.ecoheatpumps.co.uk/air_source_heat_pumps.htm

Can this be re-written to be less of an advert and more NPOV?206.248.160.147 (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)