Talk:Bath bomb

Copyvio
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)

Dunno
The first sentence seems a little POV and unencyclopedia "fun and exciting addition"? &mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;) '' 04:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * So remove it!! Well, i'll do so now... The Minist   e   r of War   (Peace) 16:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Alternative Medicine?

 * Is* a bath bomb an alternative medical treatment? I thought it was a thing one got from Lush that turned one's bath water pretty colors?  Should it be an A.M. stub at all?  I also felt that the majority of the article, 'make your own bath bomb' was un-encyclopedic and belonged on a DIY site.  ParvatiBai 07:35, 30 January 2007 (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)


 * Agreed. I have been involved in the Alternative medicine project, and I just happened upon this article, and I kinda balked at seeing this added to that project. __meco (talk) 12:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Revamp
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)


 * I don't quite understand what you're saying. If nobody has replaced the "substantive info", then perhaps it wasn't immediately important. When I was reworking the page I tried to preserve as much information as possible, cutting out some of the stuff that seemed purely speculative (such as average time to dissolve).
 * It was an alt-med stub before I touched it, and it's a stub now, which I think is an appropriate quality grading for the article.
 * In terms of maintenance, it's not my sole responsibility. Had someone vandalised the page and I was first to notice, then I'd have reverted it. I was never first to notice, so I didn't revert it. Similarly, I suspect that this article will be difficulty to push up the quality scale because of the paucity of reliable sources, history etc., and I feel no particular attachment to it, so I moved on. In short, one edit doth not a lifelong commitment make.
 * This article gets almost one hundred views each day, so were anything conspicuously absent, it would be filled in.
 * I've reviewed the diff between my edit and the one before, and I'm satisfied that I caused a net improvement of the article. Brammers (talk/c) 09:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * To follow up on what Brammers said, one of the people who is also able to improve the article is you (IP). You can look back through the history (let me know if you don't know how), and see if any of that information can be sourced and included. If it can, then you are certainly welcome to do so directly--the page is not protected, so everyone can edit it. If you're unsure about the quality of individual additions, feel free to bring them to the talk page first, then we can discuss them. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Unpediable?
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)
 * Notable topics are covered in books, trade journals, magazines, etc. A lifestyle magazine that talked about how Bath Bombs were the hot trend of 1994 (or whatever) would be reliable.  An article in Martha Stewart's magazine talking about how to make them would be reliable.  Now, this product is widely enough available that it seems likely that the topic is notable and verifiable, even though we don't currently have any references (which is why I didn't nominate it for deletion).  You may be confused about original research, however--if you had a reliable site or magazine article that talked about how to use, make, or choose bath bombs, those would be notable.  Blogs probably wouldn't be, but there may be some online sites that would; we'd have to examine them on an individual basis.  As for Citizendia, you're certainly welcome to use their service rather than ours; I've never tried it, but to each xyr own.  Qwyrxian (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Undone edit
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)

History
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)

Incorrect chemical composition of essential oils
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. Essential oils are volatile aromatic compounds and have very different chemical structures than triglycerides. TSFrey (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit Request
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.

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".

In recent years, the bath bomb has led to other trends. Bathscaping is seen as decorating a bathtub, both before and during bathing.

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)
 * ✅. Heartmusic678 (talk) 13:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Merger proposal
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)


 * Sounds good to me, Festucalex. I doubt this will ever make FA status, but the bath fizzies article is even ropier. Brammers (talk/c) 11:45, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * At the very least, this one has sources. 〜 Festucalex  •  talk  14:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, but I think Bath fizzies would be a more appropriate title for the merged page.
 * MrAnmol (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I get where you're coming from, but the bath bomb article consistently has twenty times the pageviews than the fizzies article (|Bath_fizzies comparison). That would suggest that bath bombs are what people are looking for. Perhaps we just add a note to this article that bath bomb "powders" are also known as bath fizzies, and that'll be good enough? There's little else on the fizzies article that isn't already included here. Brammers (talk/c) 22:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Comment from Inforbrain
Universaromes is a major player in bath bombs worldwide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inforbain (talk • contribs) 13:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's really not though, is it? I've moved this into its own section and undone your unreferenced addition to the article. Brammers (talk/c) 14:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Regrading to Start class
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:


 * The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas. The article has one or more of the following:
 * A useful picture or graphic ✅ A range of bath bombs in a shop, and one in a bath.
 * Multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic ✅ appropriate amount of wikilinks
 * A subheading that fully treats an element of the topic ✅ chemistry
 * Multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article ✅ four different aspects

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)