Talk:Packaging toilet

Is this really needed?
@User:Mdnahas, I have never heard of a packing toilet until today. I am not sure if it really warrants its own article. To me, this seems to be a container-based sanitation toilet. Can't we just include it in that article and redirect to there? EMsmile (talk) 05:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


 * EMsmile I am not so sure. As far as I can tell; a container-based sanitation toilet contains the waste in a sealed container. This packaging toilet wraps the waste in plastic. The idea is similar but not identical, it may be wise to develop this article before considering whether to merge. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I think it is just another variation of a container-based toilet. The little stub of an article mentions Loowatt (it's in the website that is referenced: https://capecodecotoiletcenter.com/types-of-eco-toilets/packaging-toilets/). That is already included in the other article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Container-based_sanitation#Loowatt I can't imagine what other content you'd want to be adding here to move it beyond stub? I work in this industry and have never come across "packaging toilet" (as a generic term) before so I am pretty sure it is just an alternative name for the same thing. It might just be the "brand name" that some company is using for their product to make it sound like it's something special? The bag will be inside of a container (which makes up the toilet seat) so as far as I can tell it's a container-based toilet. EMsmile (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


 * There's not much content here. Perhaps redirect and mention the name somewhere appropriate in container-based sanitation rather than merging anything else? &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 16:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with your suggestion, Frayæ. We could even move all of the content to container-based sanitation, it wouldn't hurt. That historical stuff could be quite interesting. Alternative is to move the historical stuff to history of toilet or dry toilet, it might fit better there? EMsmile (talk) 12:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It might be too specific for dry toilet, and maybe not relevant enough for the overview article (toilet). You first suggestion is likely best. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I think it could be alright for the history section of dry toilet, as I don't think we should have too many small little history sections on different pages, but rather bundle it on a few. But I agree that it would not be relevant enough for toilet. EMsmile (talk)
 * I have moved the content now to container-based sanitation and placed a redirect, as discussed. EMsmile (talk) 04:13, 27 September 2018 (UTC)