This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Feminism 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.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles
This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This
WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the
project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
occupational safety and health 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.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
Organized Labour 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.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles
This article 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
I have just modified one external link on
Potty parity. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}).
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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
EMsmile Please revisit the merger tag
you added to the article page and fix it. I suspect you were doing some cutting & pasting that day, and the link you have there for the merge discussion is almost certainly not the one you meant. I would have corrected it for you, but since you mentioned three possible target pages, I didn't want to guess your intent. By the way, you know that a merge can operate on any number of pages, so if it was your intent to merge all four articles, or any subset, you can indicate that in the {{merge}} template by adding additional params.
Mathglot (
talk)
09:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Thanks for this helpful hint. I have done the two templates now but I've left the discussion here because the talk page of
unisex public toilet is rather busy at the moment. If you'd prefer to have the discussion there rather than here, feel free to move it, thanks.
EMsmile (
talk)
00:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)reply
OPPOSE.
Potty parity, as a phrase, seems to have settled down to a clear enough understanding: designing public buildings to get a given number of men and women through their sex-segregated toilets in the same amount of time. This concept, and the lobbying and laws that have developed over the past decade or two, are not at all the same arguments as used for
bathroom bills. The first is framed about equality for women (and convenience for the men who have to wait for them in theatre intermissions etc.). The latter is framed about transgender rights. Potty parity is not, as a concept and phrase, about toilets open to men and women -- although it is true that one way to speed up women's pee time would be to create unisex toilets. But the ideas are different enough to warrant separate articles.
Carbon Caryatid (
talk) 23:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC) PS The MERGEREASON "Text" refers to very short articles -
Potty parity has 14 references and far beyond a stub, so that reason is not a sufficient one for a merge.
Carbon Caryatid (
talk)
23:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)reply
I think the article when you look carefully is actually very short. I am still not sure if it warrants its own article. Take a look at this section:
/info/en/?search=Potty_parity#U.S. It's a hotch potch of sentences, many of whom are the same or similar as to the ones in the former article on "sex segregation in public restrooms", which is now part of
unisex public toilets but might be moved to
bathroom bill soon. They should actually be deleted or moved because they are not focusin on the topic of "potty parity" but are talking about sex segregation, The only part in this article that is unique is the part under definition and maybe those examples given. I suggest we re-focus this article and then see how much is left over of it.
EMsmile (
talk)
02:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Title rename
If this is not moved, this terminology shouldn't be used. "Potty parity" sounds quite a bit hilarious, but sadly, encyclopediae are not supposed to be a source of humor. Unfortunately. --
קל •
thinus00:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Calthinus You might think so (I did), but actual usage in
reliable sources trumps our perceptions of inappropriate titles, if that's what it's really called. If it is not merged, I'm afraid the best you could hope for, is to find a synonym that is used more widely, or as widely, as 'potty parity', and propose a rename based on
WP:COMMONNAME. Check out these results:
P.S., I've
taken the liberty of adding a section header, "Title rename", above your comment, to separate it from the
Merger proposal section in which it appeared, because this seems like an independent subject. If this is not to your liking, please feel free to remove the header.
Mathglot (
talk)
04:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)reply
OPPOSE. As above, it warrants its own article, and as per
Wikipedia:Article titles: "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. [...] the ideal article title precisely identifies the subject; it is short, natural, distinguishable and recognizable". "Potty parity" fulfills all those criteria.
Carbon Caryatid (
talk)
23:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Feminism 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.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles
This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This
WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the
project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
occupational safety and health 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.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
Organized Labour 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.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles
This article 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
I have just modified one external link on
Potty parity. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}).
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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
EMsmile Please revisit the merger tag
you added to the article page and fix it. I suspect you were doing some cutting & pasting that day, and the link you have there for the merge discussion is almost certainly not the one you meant. I would have corrected it for you, but since you mentioned three possible target pages, I didn't want to guess your intent. By the way, you know that a merge can operate on any number of pages, so if it was your intent to merge all four articles, or any subset, you can indicate that in the {{merge}} template by adding additional params.
Mathglot (
talk)
09:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Thanks for this helpful hint. I have done the two templates now but I've left the discussion here because the talk page of
unisex public toilet is rather busy at the moment. If you'd prefer to have the discussion there rather than here, feel free to move it, thanks.
EMsmile (
talk)
00:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)reply
OPPOSE.
Potty parity, as a phrase, seems to have settled down to a clear enough understanding: designing public buildings to get a given number of men and women through their sex-segregated toilets in the same amount of time. This concept, and the lobbying and laws that have developed over the past decade or two, are not at all the same arguments as used for
bathroom bills. The first is framed about equality for women (and convenience for the men who have to wait for them in theatre intermissions etc.). The latter is framed about transgender rights. Potty parity is not, as a concept and phrase, about toilets open to men and women -- although it is true that one way to speed up women's pee time would be to create unisex toilets. But the ideas are different enough to warrant separate articles.
Carbon Caryatid (
talk) 23:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC) PS The MERGEREASON "Text" refers to very short articles -
Potty parity has 14 references and far beyond a stub, so that reason is not a sufficient one for a merge.
Carbon Caryatid (
talk)
23:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)reply
I think the article when you look carefully is actually very short. I am still not sure if it warrants its own article. Take a look at this section:
/info/en/?search=Potty_parity#U.S. It's a hotch potch of sentences, many of whom are the same or similar as to the ones in the former article on "sex segregation in public restrooms", which is now part of
unisex public toilets but might be moved to
bathroom bill soon. They should actually be deleted or moved because they are not focusin on the topic of "potty parity" but are talking about sex segregation, The only part in this article that is unique is the part under definition and maybe those examples given. I suggest we re-focus this article and then see how much is left over of it.
EMsmile (
talk)
02:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Title rename
If this is not moved, this terminology shouldn't be used. "Potty parity" sounds quite a bit hilarious, but sadly, encyclopediae are not supposed to be a source of humor. Unfortunately. --
קל •
thinus00:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Calthinus You might think so (I did), but actual usage in
reliable sources trumps our perceptions of inappropriate titles, if that's what it's really called. If it is not merged, I'm afraid the best you could hope for, is to find a synonym that is used more widely, or as widely, as 'potty parity', and propose a rename based on
WP:COMMONNAME. Check out these results:
P.S., I've
taken the liberty of adding a section header, "Title rename", above your comment, to separate it from the
Merger proposal section in which it appeared, because this seems like an independent subject. If this is not to your liking, please feel free to remove the header.
Mathglot (
talk)
04:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)reply
OPPOSE. As above, it warrants its own article, and as per
Wikipedia:Article titles: "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. [...] the ideal article title precisely identifies the subject; it is short, natural, distinguishable and recognizable". "Potty parity" fulfills all those criteria.
Carbon Caryatid (
talk)
23:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)reply