Talk:Bubble bath

Home Living Low‑importance

	Housing portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Home Living, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of home-related articles 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.Home LivingWikipedia:WikiProject Home LivingTemplate:WikiProject Home Livinghome articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Health and fitness Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of health and physical fitness related articles 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.Health and fitnessWikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitnessTemplate:WikiProject Health and fitnessHealth and fitness articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Why are rubber ducks linked?

they aren't even in the main body of the article.

I took out the distracting ducks photo for the nth time, but also the children photo (which showed abnormal excess rather than typical practice) and the bubble bombs photo (which may show a fizzie bomb more appropriate to the entry on fizzies or bombs). - RMG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.128.37 (talk) 07:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page is confusing and needs a clean-up.

I would like to turn this into a disambiguation entry,

but I need to study their form, and this article is already pretty short and would become shorter with disambiguation. "Bubble bath" (as can be seen by surveying the nets) is used more commonly in the sense of a mechanically aerated or effervescent bath by non-native users of English. Unfortunately there is no widely used unambiguous term in English that encompasses only those kinds of bath and not the foam bath. Non-native users of English also tend to use the unambiguous term "foam bath" where appropriate, but unfortunately native users of English more often use the ambiguous term "bubble bath".

I think the disambiguation page I propose should refer readers to 3 types of entries: one for mechanically aerated baths (linked to whirlpool, Jacuzzi, whatever), another for bath salts (which article would hopefully encompass effervescent preparations), and another for foam bath (which article should be titled such, but add immediately in its intro that it's also commonly called "bubble bath" by native English users). I think we should prefer unambiguous terms in article titles even when they're slightly less popular than ambiguous ones.

This area has plenty of fodder for disambiguation. For example, "bath ring" can refer to bathtub ring or to a device for holding a baby upright while bathing.

I happen to be an expert on bath foams and foam baths, as can be seen by

What?

"preserving modesty while giving the appearance that a performer who is actually clothed is tub-bathing normally." What the hell does that mean? Appearance that a performer who is actually clothes is bath tubbing normally? What the hell?!? JayKeaton 17:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It means that a model or actor doesn't have to be nude at the scene, but appears to be nude while actually wearing a swimsuit. Maybe I should've rewritten it completely rather than trying to keep as much of the previous authors' wording as I could. Have at it. 216.179.3.141 16:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)robgood@bestweb.net[reply]

preposition emphasis in headings

Twice I've underlined or otherwise added emphasis to the preposition and prepositional phrase "in" and "on top of", in the headings "bubbles [prep] water", and twice others have deleted the emphasis. I hadn't considered this detail to be so controversial, and I want to know what the problem is. Is there a problem in general with either underlines or bold face occurring as part of a heading? Do you not want the reader's att'n drawn to the variable part of the otherwise similar headings, "bubbles in water" and "bubbles on top of water", or is there some other drawback to "bubbles in water", etc.? Is there some Wikipedia convention violated by such emphasis?Robert Goodman (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Point of View?

"Bath fizzies that also foam tend to produce disappointingly little foam when allowed to do so from their own fizz, and aeration of the water loses the gas from the fizz." -- There isn't much that is encyclopedic quality about that sentence or the paragraph it's in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.154.121 (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]