Jump to content

Talk:Navy shower

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 ++Lar: t/c 15:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source

[edit]

The info on hollywood showers comes from [1], but I don't quite get how to enter that as a reference. Joyous! | Talk 18:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From a google search for "kniggar"? Where exactly is the information presented on that page? GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 16:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for catching my idiotic mistake. That was a cut and paste error from attempting to verify on another article. I meant [2]. Joyous! | Talk 16:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I've added the reference to the article now. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 18:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers?

[edit]

The following seems a bit strange to me, to say the least:

The total time for the water being on is typically under 2 minutes and often less. [...] A typical ten-minute shower takes 60 US gallons (230 L) of water, while a navy shower usually takes about 3 US gallons (11 L).

If the water consumption for a navy shower is only one twentieth that of a normal shower, then certainly the time the water is turned on must be less than one fifth, right? The referenced paper unfortunately uses weasel words like "as much as" and "as little as" to describe water consumption instead of giving reliable estimates, but the whole thing still seems contradictory to me.

Oh, and on a side note, if we're going to quote that paper, we should at least keep the weasel words instead of talking about a "typical" ten-minute shower and saying that a navy shower "usually" takes this or that much, because that certainly is not the same as "as much as" and "as little as". -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 17:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the wording to follow the reference, but this will lead to similar questions, since it isn't consistent with 15000 gallons per year. The basic problem is that dividing a maximum of one distribtion by the minimum of another is to be widely conservative. Or liberal: a skewed result either way. If you divide the reference's "15000 gallons per year" by 365, we get about 40 gallons/shower (assuming one a day) and this moves things vaguely into the "one fifth" area. mdf 18:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC) (One who has navy-showered for years.)[reply]

'The total time for the water being on is typically under 2 minutes and often less.'

I thought of editing this sentence, but it is so wierd I think we should keep it. --Publunch 01:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The comaparison is that between the typical land-lubber (household) shower head, and a standard Navy shower head that would have less flow. And it is all estimates, since people are all of different sizes. A larger person would need more water to wet and rinse themselves, as a smaller person would need less. It also depends on how dirty they are and what they are cleaning off of themselves. If they're just taking a regular shower (sweat and light dirt) it wouldn't take much, while trying to scrub off DFM (Diesel Fuel Marine) or paint chips may require more. This is why the "weasel words" are required.
As for "Hollywood showers" being taken by the Engineering Department, although likely true (I don't hang out in the Engineers' heads), I think it is a cheap swipe at the Snipes, and a little funny, but probably not suitable for an encyclopedia article. Normally, on board U.S. Aegis Cruisers, the Engineers just dump all the extra water into the aft horseshoe passageway because they fell asleep down in CCS (Central Control Station), and didn't switch potable water tanks. Just my two-cents. --Asacan 02:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown phrase

[edit]

What is "dumping the D.U."? Joyous! | Talk 13:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know specifically what "D.U." stands for (desalination unit?), but I might be able to help with the meaning as a whole. Modern ships, whether naval or otherwise, carry watermakers which can top up the tanks from seawater during a voyage. On my last trip on this ship we had a very short crew, together with a few days of gales which meant a lot of people didn't bother so much with the showers. The assistant engineer told me he'd been dumping fresh water overboard for days because the tanks were full, and eventually turned off the watermakers altogether. No "navy showers" on that trip. PeteVerdon 00:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other countries

[edit]

You guys need to get some information from other countries into this article. For instance, it's my understanding that this is the normal type of shower in Germany, due to the higher price of water. -FunnyMan 23:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consumption

[edit]

Speaking from experience. I enjoy perfectly adequate showers in my caravan using around 6 litres of water. I can go 20 days of drinking, cooking, showering etc using the 230 litre shower example that I find extraordinary. And I too find it odd that turning off the water when not required is considered unusual. EdX20 (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement needed in sourcing

[edit]

This article has a serious problem with sourcing. It currently cites seven sources, but:

  • Two of them are dead links.
  • Only one of them (that isn't a dead link) contains the phrase "navy shower", and it does not contain extensive discussion of the topic. It is merely a puff piece by the New York Times that lists curious vocabulary terms and briefly explains their meanings. Most of the terms that it lists have not withstood the test of time since 2007 and were never really commonly used in the first place. If that's the best we can do for this article, perhaps we don't need an article on this topic at all. Ever heard of boot camp flu, drama-price, earmarxist, exploding ARM, mom job, vegansexual, or walkshed?
  • Two of them (only one of which is currently a functioning link) seem to be about general statistics for household water and energy usage – not about this topic.
  • Three of them are about body and hair washing by astronauts, which seems so far off topic that it is not clear whether that information should be in this article at all.

—BarrelProof (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Navy shower. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Navy_shower&oldid=1204219042"