This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I removed a section that appeared to have been taken from here with minimal changes. I have left a polite note for the user. Bovlb 04:30, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
The first sentence seems a little POV and unencyclopedia "fun and exciting addition"? — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 04:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
/\ Agreed. I think this should be filed under the Hygiene or Bathing category, but I'm a n00b and I don't know how to move things.
Someone has put something about the therapeutic effects, essential oils etc in so I put the alt med banner up. But I'll try and find a Bathing category and add it too:) Sticky Parkin 15:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Decided to be bold and gave the article an overhaul. Tidied up text, added picture, removed alternative medicine stub tag, since that seemed to be a bit unwanted. Brammers ( talk) 10:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, but in the year since you cut a lot of the material, nobody has filled back in substantive info, and the article has been labeled a stub, nor have you done any maintenance. Maybe someone would like to see if any of what it had when I (Robert Goodman) last touched it should be back in. 67.86.203.235 ( talk) 02:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The revision notes by Qwyrxian led me to wonder about whether this, or many other subjects, are fit material for Wikipedia according to its rules on sourcing. The people who know about the properties of bath bombs are those who make them and those who use them. Those who use them are doing original research, which is not supposed to be the basis of Wikipedia sourcing. Those who make them know a lot, but can always be said to be "commercial" (either because they're advertising their own product or their own how-to instructions) and hence "too self-serving".
I can think of only one other likely source for info for such a piece: trade journals and trade books. Just seems Wikipedia's a waste if all it does is digest articles in those.
Another point for Citizendia: someone who is immersed (heh) in the field and absorbed the info, but may not remember any original references or be able to find any that are significant compared to hir own knowledge, is the best source for info on stuff like this. 67.86.203.235 ( talk) 02:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
This diff introduced some new information to the article, but I decided to remove it because it wasn't sourced. Additionally, I'm not sure how correct the information was: bath bombs make my dry skin drier than the Atacama, not moisturise it. I've informed the editor who added the information and have written this here so any discussion can be in the right place. Brammers ( talk/ c) 10:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
A note on the history would be good. I read somewhere that they were invented in 1989. Lush may have been the first shop to stock them. Equinox ◑ 18:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Removing the claim that essential oils react with sodium hydroxide to produce soap. The given chemical equation is correct, but the compound represented, RCO2CH2CH(O2CR′)CH2CO2R is actually the chemical structure for a triglyceride [1]. Essential oils are volatile aromatic compounds and have very different chemical structures than triglycerides. [2] TSFrey ( talk) 01:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
References
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
1. Replace opening paragraph with -
A bath bomb is a
consumer product used during
bathing. It was invented and patented in 1989 by Mo Constantine, a co-founder of
Lush Cosmetics.
[1]
It is a compacted mixture of wet and dry ingredients moulded into any of several shapes and then dried. Bath water effervesces at the surface of a bath bomb immersed within it, with attendant dispersion of such ingredients as essential oil, moisturiser, scent, or colorant.
2. Add the following to history -
The sharing of videos and pictures on
social media of multi layered bath bombs, is often referred to as "bath art".
[2]
In recent years, the bath bomb has led to other trends. Bathscaping is seen as decorating a bathtub, both before and during bathing. [3]
3. Remove “patent” subheading, its seems unnecessary? Content can remain under history, but no need for the heading.
RuanaLush ( talk) 11:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
References
I propose merging Bath fizzies into Bath bomb. The topics are WP:SED, and bath fizzies is an article of remarkably low quality. 〜 Festucalex • talk 15:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Universaromes is a major player in bath bombs worldwide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inforbain ( talk • contribs) 13:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
You know what, I've had a check against the content assessment scale, and I think this is actually Start class rather than a stub:
So I've made the decision to bump it up to Start class. Now it can be a permastart article rather than a permastub. Brammers ( talk/ c) 14:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I removed a section that appeared to have been taken from here with minimal changes. I have left a polite note for the user. Bovlb 04:30, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
The first sentence seems a little POV and unencyclopedia "fun and exciting addition"? — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 04:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
/\ Agreed. I think this should be filed under the Hygiene or Bathing category, but I'm a n00b and I don't know how to move things.
Someone has put something about the therapeutic effects, essential oils etc in so I put the alt med banner up. But I'll try and find a Bathing category and add it too:) Sticky Parkin 15:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Decided to be bold and gave the article an overhaul. Tidied up text, added picture, removed alternative medicine stub tag, since that seemed to be a bit unwanted. Brammers ( talk) 10:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, but in the year since you cut a lot of the material, nobody has filled back in substantive info, and the article has been labeled a stub, nor have you done any maintenance. Maybe someone would like to see if any of what it had when I (Robert Goodman) last touched it should be back in. 67.86.203.235 ( talk) 02:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The revision notes by Qwyrxian led me to wonder about whether this, or many other subjects, are fit material for Wikipedia according to its rules on sourcing. The people who know about the properties of bath bombs are those who make them and those who use them. Those who use them are doing original research, which is not supposed to be the basis of Wikipedia sourcing. Those who make them know a lot, but can always be said to be "commercial" (either because they're advertising their own product or their own how-to instructions) and hence "too self-serving".
I can think of only one other likely source for info for such a piece: trade journals and trade books. Just seems Wikipedia's a waste if all it does is digest articles in those.
Another point for Citizendia: someone who is immersed (heh) in the field and absorbed the info, but may not remember any original references or be able to find any that are significant compared to hir own knowledge, is the best source for info on stuff like this. 67.86.203.235 ( talk) 02:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
This diff introduced some new information to the article, but I decided to remove it because it wasn't sourced. Additionally, I'm not sure how correct the information was: bath bombs make my dry skin drier than the Atacama, not moisturise it. I've informed the editor who added the information and have written this here so any discussion can be in the right place. Brammers ( talk/ c) 10:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
A note on the history would be good. I read somewhere that they were invented in 1989. Lush may have been the first shop to stock them. Equinox ◑ 18:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Removing the claim that essential oils react with sodium hydroxide to produce soap. The given chemical equation is correct, but the compound represented, RCO2CH2CH(O2CR′)CH2CO2R is actually the chemical structure for a triglyceride [1]. Essential oils are volatile aromatic compounds and have very different chemical structures than triglycerides. [2] TSFrey ( talk) 01:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
References
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
1. Replace opening paragraph with -
A bath bomb is a
consumer product used during
bathing. It was invented and patented in 1989 by Mo Constantine, a co-founder of
Lush Cosmetics.
[1]
It is a compacted mixture of wet and dry ingredients moulded into any of several shapes and then dried. Bath water effervesces at the surface of a bath bomb immersed within it, with attendant dispersion of such ingredients as essential oil, moisturiser, scent, or colorant.
2. Add the following to history -
The sharing of videos and pictures on
social media of multi layered bath bombs, is often referred to as "bath art".
[2]
In recent years, the bath bomb has led to other trends. Bathscaping is seen as decorating a bathtub, both before and during bathing. [3]
3. Remove “patent” subheading, its seems unnecessary? Content can remain under history, but no need for the heading.
RuanaLush ( talk) 11:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
References
I propose merging Bath fizzies into Bath bomb. The topics are WP:SED, and bath fizzies is an article of remarkably low quality. 〜 Festucalex • talk 15:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Universaromes is a major player in bath bombs worldwide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inforbain ( talk • contribs) 13:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
You know what, I've had a check against the content assessment scale, and I think this is actually Start class rather than a stub:
So I've made the decision to bump it up to Start class. Now it can be a permastart article rather than a permastub. Brammers ( talk/ c) 14:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)