This template 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
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Sanitation, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sanitation 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.SanitationWikipedia:WikiProject SanitationTemplate:WikiProject Sanitationsanitation
This template was considered for deletion on 3 October 2010. The result of the discussion was "restrict scope".
Bathrooms
After closing the deletion discussion, I have cut this template to restrict its scope. The old template is pasted below if someone wants to create other smaller templates with more limited scope. Plastikspork―Œ(talk)04:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still find the list of collected toilet types here a bit arbitrary. Under which criteria do we decide which other toilet pages are to be mentioned here? Some of them are really not important and only very small articles, is it really worth linking to them? EvM-Susana (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is worthwhile linking to all articles relevant to the topic, even if this reveals gaps and overlaps in article coverage. Small articles which overlap with other articles and are unlikely to grow much, should be tagged for merging. Part of the benefit of a navbar for a topic is that it enables any interested reader or editor to easily find related articles. Better visibility of topic structural issues makes it more likely they will be addressed by somebody; in the meantime, the navbar helps everybody to navigate the somewhat muddled existing structure.
I am thinking of adding in coverage of urinal-related topics, mostly in a new subsection. There already is some overlap (e.g. Urine diversion, Dual flush, Pollee, etc.) and trying to make a clear distinction between toilet-related versus urinal-related topics in separate navbars isn't that useful. The alternative of setting up a separate navbar for Urinals probably would result in a very small navbar, with unclear criteria for inclusion in one or another, or both. Reify-tech (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think such a sub-section for urinal-related topics could be useful. A urinal is not the same as a toilet, but it does fulfill a fraction of the function of a toilet so there is clearly a connection.EvM-Susana (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It might help to cross check with the list of articles compiled here for the WikiProject Sanitation to see if any others need to be added.
I deleted the iLOO as it seems not notable to me for this template (but perhaps someone disagrees?).EvM-Susana (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Remove bidet and electronic bidet? And historical terms
The terms bidet and electronic bidets should not be listed together with other types of toilets, as they are not toilets! Either move them to cultural aspects or to "related sanitary installations" or something like that? Also, I have created a grouping for historical terms, I think that's helpful. EvM-Susana (talk) 19:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion about honey bucket versus bucket toilet
There is currently a discussion going on on the talk page of honey bucket to determine if the page should be renamed to bucket toilet. If someone who has this template on their watchlist has an opinion, please head over to that talk page and state your opinion, thanks.EvMsmile (talk) 11:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Template:Toilets → Template:Defecation – This useful and relevant template contains all sorts of defecation-related material. I think it's misleading to call it toilets and it should be named after the primary topic of defecation. Toilets etc. are clearly related but I think based on what is included in this template it should be renamed to better reflect its very useful purpose. Tom (LT) (talk) 01:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agreed that "defecation" is problematic because some links concern urination. I think "human waste" is also problematic because it seems to primarily refer to the product as opposed to the activity, and, for example, neither urine nor feces are articles in the navigation template. Perhaps "Elimination", which I understand the be the term to collectively describe urination and defecation? Or "Human waste elimination" if that's not specific enough? --Bsherr (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative: if you want to rename it then how about renaming it to "sanitation"? And I am against "human waste". If anything it should be "human excreta" or "human excreta management" (which is a subset of sanitation).EMsmile (talk) 15:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as proposed and I'm not a fan of the status quo, either. Both of them fall far short of describing the contents of the template. I propose Template:Potty. … … … … … … okay, Template:Human waste is okay, Template:Human waste elimination isn't bad either, the status quo is also okay, and my preferred title would be Template:Human waste and its elimination as a fully unambiguous title. RedSlash21:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Interstellarity: I feel that the closure of this discussion was premature and that no proper consensus was reached in the short time of the discussion. I think for a lay person it is quite unclear what "human waste elimination" refers to. Elimination sounds like eradication, like we want to stop human waste from occurring. I still think "human excreta management" could have worked and would have been more precise. Or "sanitation" although that is much broader than just dealing with human excreta. - Maybe we can reconsider this at some point in the future. EMsmile (talk) 01:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@EMsmile: You are welcome to take this to WP:MR. I will stay out of the discussion there because as the closer, I am involved and I feel it is best to get uninvolved editors' opinions about whether my close was good or not. Interstellarity (talk) 11:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I might do that in the future some time... First I wanted to see if anyone is supporting my objection here on this page? EMsmile (talk) 05:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
