Talk:Fire sprinkler

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.

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology 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.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

This article was selected as the article for improvement on 16 October 2017 for a period of one week.

Article name

In order to eliminate confusion with the "Fire Sprinkler" article, and to align the definitions of both articles with modern terminology (e.g., NFPA), the title of this article should be changed to "Fire Sprinkler", and the title of the "Fire Sprinkler" article should be changed to "Fire Sprinkler System". But as I am new, I don't know how to get this accomplished.Fireproeng 22:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like half of this has been done, as the "Fire Sprinkler" article title has been changed to "Fire Sprinkler System". Thanks to whoever did this. (I would like to know how to do this.) How can we get the name of this article changed to "Fire Sprinkler"? Thanks in advance for the help. Fireproeng 14:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since "Fire Sprinkler" is a common term for the entire system, and article names are intented to make things easy for non-specialists to find, i suggest that

This article be moved to Fire Sprinkler Head;
The article on systems remain at Fire Sprinkler System.
The name Fire Sprinkler be used for a disambiguation page that points to both of the other pages.

Is this acceptable? DES ^(talk) 19:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like that idea. Being new to Wiki and seeing a need to make these Fire pages better, I don't know how to do all of that. If you can, that would be great. "Sprinkler Head" does get confused with "lawn sprinkler head." Bombero126 16:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term sprinkler head is not not used by industry standards, such as NFPA. The term fire sprinkler refers only to the one component, which is a part of a fire sprinkler system. So, we could make the fire sprinkler article a portion of the fire sprinkler system article, or rename the sprinkler head article to fire sprinkler - but using the term sprinkler head is improper. Fireproeng 17:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favor of having two seperate articles. One for Fire Sprinklers and one for Fire Sprinkler Systems as a whole. While Sprinkler Head is improper, it is like saying "most remote area" when it is properly "most demanding." We should refer to things by their proper names, but we do slip out of habits caused by years of misspeaking.Bombero126 23:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the precise names, I think there ought to be two pages with specific names, and one page at the more general name that serves as a disambiguation page. Note that industry standards are not the only relevant source of names. What would the casual, non-expert, reader call this?. In any case, I have the editing skills to construct a dab page and move to wherever, but the editors most interested in this topic should get consensus on what the names should be. I'll be glad to help in carrying out that consensus, whatever it might be. You could merge the two articles if you choose, of course. DES ^(talk) 15:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lacking anyone else offering an opinion, I think Bombero126 and I have agreed to the names as stated above: One for Fire Sprinkler and one for Fire Sprinkler System.Fireproeng 19:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move done as requested. DES ^(talk) 05:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Color Codes

The table of color codes listed is for New Zealand. Is this the same as in the US? (oops - forgot to sign my name!) --BennyD 18:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. The color codes are the same for all manufacturers of bulbs so that there is no confusion. I have added the verbage from the latest edition of NFPA 13, the 2007 edition that also gives information about link style sprinklers and maximum celing temps.Bombero126 15:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tagged for cleanup

I tagged this article for cleanup because there iappears to be some sort of stylesheet issue causing it to look all "piled up" (i.e. some elements rendering on top of other elements). My CSS-fu is not really all that great. --WhiteDragon 15:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Table is confusing

The table of temperatures and color codes is unclear. For example, do red bulbs start to break at 100F, 135F, or 155F? The term "Maximum Ceiling Temperature" is never defined. Could somebody please rectify this? - David McCabe (talk) 06:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Congreve

This public television show says William Congreve invented the earliest fire sprinkler 50 years before Henry Parmalee: [1]. 72.244.207.30 (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Word change

This article says, "The water stream impacts a deflector, which produces a specific spray pattern designed in support of the goals of the sprinkler type (i.e., control or suppression)."

I think the word "impacts" should be changed to "hits" or "strikes"

Neutrino1200 (talk) 04:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fire sprinkler. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121012062715/http://www.alchemycastings.com/lead-products/fusible.htm to http://www.alchemycastings.com/lead-products/fusible.htm

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) 00:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unwanted Alarms

There was a section on 'unwanted alarms' that was tagged as 'how-to'. I looked at it, felt it was non-encyclopedic and remove the section (diff). An editor left a message on my use talk page asking it be restored. I checked the material I removed and still feel it is non-encyclopedic but mention it here in case someone wants to put in an edited version. RJFJR (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response Time Index

The term should be defined in a way that at least a reasonable number of readers will understand. I found this definition, and this definition but they do not paint me a picture. I would like to understand the units - which metres are measured, what happens in the seconds, why a square root? Maybe someone familiar with the term can help. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replace the image for the Fire Sprinkler

I propose we change the image for this. On mobile, it appears as something with red liquid which is generally not a fundamental element of this device. As a result, the initial view of it is not as comprehensive as the same thing without the red liquid. Thoughts about changing to another image of the same thing but without the red liquid? FULBERT (talk) 11:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done FULBERT (talk) 22:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fire sprinkler. 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) 13:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fire sprinkler. 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) 18:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Response Sprinkler

Towards the bottom, the article mentions that quick response sprinklers direct a portion of their spray upward towards the ceiling above. This is false information. The linked website that is used as a source is a contractor that apparently has a misunderstanding of what a Quick Response sprinkler is. A quick response sprinkler is defined solely by its RTI (Response Time Index) and requires a response time index of less than 50. The deflector (which is what is responsible for the spray pattern development of the sprinkler) has nothing at all to do with whether a sprinkler is Quick Response or Standard Response. The term quick response sprinkler is defined by NFPA (multiple NFPA standards include the definition) and NFPA is the only reliable source that should be linked for that definition, not the blog of a random industry contractor.

The type of sprinkler that directs water upward towards the ceiling in addition to downward is actually what is referred to as an "Old Style" or "Conventional Style" sprinkler, and has nothing to do with whether it is a Quick Response or Standard Response type.

These definitions are available to the public at the NFPA website. Each standard is viewable for free as long as you register an account. Definitions can be found in Chapter 3 of each standard. NFPA 13 should be referred to for the definition of Quick Response. See 3.6.4.7 of NFPA 13 2013 edition for the definition of a Quick Response sprinkler, and 3.6.4.5 for the definition of an Old-Style/Conventional Sprinkler.

I think this erroneous definition at the bottom should be removed altogether, especially considering Quick Response sprinklers are already defined earlier in the article (twice, I believe). 24.0.99.168 (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]