Talk:Shower

Removed "psychological benefits"

Was a typical "scientists have discovered..." piece of PR fluff masquerading as research.Cxk271 (talk) 11:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Replacement piece

I suggest adding the name of the electrical piece with filament/spring/coil that goes inside some Shower Heads to heat the water and sometimes you need to replace it.

Typical water consumption?

I suggest adding some information about how much water is consumed when taking, say a 15 minute shower. This number may vary from country to country.Nuzz604 21:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

add some sources...where did you get your information?--Weakmassive 18:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

i heard people generally do their "best" thinking while in the shower and driving. has anyone else heard this?

Any moving water increases concentration of ions in air. Oxygenation of the blood is enhanced in highly ionized environments (this is not scientifically proven, see Ion therapy). It may help thinking. However, some verification is needed. Jaroslav Pavliš (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Skin Diseases

What could happen to you if you don't shower regularly? I think someone should put that info in. Wikiman232 03:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, but from what I've heard I think you will stink so badly that you could even smell yourself. But yeah, I agree, we need info on that. TheBlazikenMaster 19:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Heart Rate

Going from a sleep state straight into a hot shower raises the heart rate more dramatically than say a room temperature shower, and doing this every day of your life must put stain on a heart over a lifetime, I wonder if any research has ever been done into this?

ShowerReview.com

I think it's time to blacklist this page. But I'm not a member of wikimedia meta, so I wouldn't blacklist it. Anyway, someone needs to blacklist this page. It has nothing but videos, much like YouTube. Gives no good info about showers, just videos of showers. TheBlazikenMaster 11:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion for merging Steam shower to Shower

This article is small enough that there is less of a need for being an independent article, and it can benefit from being included in this article.—Tokek 23:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Since then, the article seems to have expanded enough where merging was no longer needed. Cwater1 (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Cultural Significance Section

"Showering has today largely replaced bathing. Many households today do not own a bathtub any more, but rather a shower in its place." This is little more than speculation without a citation.

I agree - but the entire article is a mess in my eyes. The group shower images are totally unecessary (and the first has another unsourced caption), and the layout looks ridiculous because there are several sub-headings and barely enough text to go under any of them. The quote is superfluous and has been formatted incorrectly. Gunstar hero 18:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

And the cultural significance appears to be purely Western in perspective. Ignatios2000 (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree. And this 'western perspective' displayed in the lemma is rather selective. In the many western countries, among the many social classes and generations, it is not necessarily a common practice to take a shower on a daily basis. People who do that, do not seem to be aware of the many people who don't.

Besides, the lemma assumes some mysterious cultural force that would 'promote' and 'encourage' daily showering: "Showering is mostly part of a daily routine primarily to promote cleanliness and prevent odor, disease and infection. (...) As a result, most modern cultures encourage a daily personal hygiene regimen." I wonder what the factual base is for the assumption of such 'cultural force' here in the west, that tells me to take showers daily. There are certainly 'forces' (from the medical world) that advocate against daily showering. If anything is 'typically western' about the 'culture' of showering, it is that people are free to do as they please.Mcouzijn (talk) 11:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Call for a scientific research on shower relating to environmental and disease protection

From my gut feeling, a morning shower mainly cleans my (multi-dimentional) aura while a night shower mainly my (3D) body. It trigs me to think why not to conduct a research with 4 groups of people (daily morning shower persons, night ones, morning and night group and a non-daily shower group). I'm sure there will be some variations on environmental, disease and living ages.

Daily??

Come on you guys, daily? That's gonna strip all the oil off your skin and make you itchy. Maybe if you work out heavily every day or work in a coal mine... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That squares with my experience; most people I know seem to shower daily. I have heard that people in Europe tend to clean themselves (if not shower, per se) less frequently, and people in hotter climates tend to clean themselves more than once a day. I do use moisturizing soap to prevent dry skin, but if I don't shower every day, I will definitely get itchy. It would be interesting to find some anthropological studies on the subject. -- Beland 23:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, you heard wrong my friend! I would be loathe to comment about the hygiene activities of half a billion people (i.e. the whole of Europe), but certainly here in the UK a daily shower is normal. You get smelly people and clean-freak people no matter where you go!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.183.201 (talk) 00:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You wrote "Here in the UK a daily shower is normal". If you mean 'normal' as in 'many people do it', then by that same argument, it is also 'normal' in the UK to *not* take a daily shower. So there you go.Mcouzijn (talk) 12:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I assumed that most people shower everyday. if i don't shower in the morning, i just really stink for the rest of the day. i assumed the same was for most. sometimes during the summer i have to shower in the afternoon aswell due to sweat from the heat making me sweat, if not just to cool down. Farleigheditor (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Elderly & Disabled

This tiny little section seems badly put together, anybody else think it should just be removed? 71.171.255.131 (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to make sure.

You do wear clothes when you take a shower right, because nothing else in the article tells me otherwise. Just think if an alien read this article. That wouldn't be good.141.150.241.220 (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing tells you that because it isn't encyclopedic. Encyclopedias don't tell you what to do/not do, it's not a guide, it gives general information. And no, I never wear clothes while taking a shower, simply because I'm in shower to clean myself up, and I can't clean up my body if I wear clothes, cleaning up the body is the main purpose of taking a shower. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that anybody old enough to read this article is going to know that you don't wear clothes in a shower. If an alien feels the need to learn English just to read this article, then we can confront that issue when it comes..--Jcreek201 (talk) 23:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The person that brought this issue up is correct. Here is proof: Wikipedia:OBVIOUS 71.245.194.46 (talk) 12:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

How is shower relevant to Architecture?

TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a part of home architecture, being part of the bathroom. And pare of institutional architecture, like school gymnasiums, prisons, fire stations etc.

By the way, the statement that: Tiles are generally waterproof, so larger surface area's of grout are less waterproof. Thus small mosaic tiles offer less of a defence than large format tiles. Is incorrect or at least misleading as far as modern construction is concerned. As an architect I would recommend smaller tile as part of a shower or drying room floor rather than larger. Smaller tile have more grout and more traction. Large tiles may be fine for walls, but will be more slipery unless specially textured. Typically a shower floor would have say 1" square tile. WonderWheeler (talk) 06:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move.

• Shower (stall) → shower (revert undiscussed move)

Undiscussed move, and this article doesn't just talk about the stall. — TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Or move Shower (stall) to Shower (for showering) or similar, and Shower (disambiguation) to Shower? Shower can also mean weather. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support the request. Shower (unmodified) is not seriously ambiguous except for the type of precipitation which doesn't even have its own article. A hatnote reading something like "Shower is also a type of precipitation. For other uses, see shower (disambiguation)." will do the trick. — AjaxSmack 09:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Anthony Appleyard's suggestion. Normally undiscussed moves like yesterday are reverted, I don't know why we need to discuss this to revert the undiscussed move. Most people looking up shower would expect to find an article ABOUT a shower for bathing in general. I still can't believe we need a poll to revert an undiscussed move, I have seen undiscussed moves just reverted quickly, not reverted by a poll. Since most people looking up shower would expect to find an information about shower for bathing I think it should be reverted to the way it was. I still think it should have been reverted to the name shower and THEN discussed. Sure shower has more meanings, that's why there is a hatnote at the top. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• I have been caught in the open by so many unexpected rain showers that, to me, the bathroom shower is far fro being a dominant meaning. OK, OK, I will revert the move as requested.Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Field shower merge proposal

Oppose - the differences between the engineering of field showers and domestic showers are so vast that they are probably only connected by both using water. Besides this, the field shower is a piece of military equipment used by combat support service units, and a great morale booster, something that is difficult to convey in a domestic shower article--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The field shower really needs to be expanded. There are several types, as well as several uses, ranging from the individual gravity and powered items to large installations that can handle large units in the field, and come with tankers and pump/generator plants. Aside from the obvious use, there are also the decontamination showers used by either NBC or hazardous environment units --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - What was the reason for merging it anyway? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 11:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  Because field shower is a substub with absolutely no technical detail whatsoever? From the current state of it, it sounds like a field shower is someone waving a hose over a group of people. If it's just some random military jargon it doesn't need its own article; communal showers can easily be incorporated here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Field showers are significantly different in purpose and method. Having a separate, linked article is a good idea. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 18:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Why continue to confuse people

The scheme for bath, bathtub, and bathing was agreed upon long ago and my changes to shower, shower (stall), showering, and Shower (disambiguation) matched that agreed upon scheme. Showering can and was supported by its own article as was shower stall. Is there a reason why the shower, shower (stall), showering, and Shower (disambiguation) should not match the agreed upon bath, bathtub, and bathing scheme? Is there a reason to merge the widely known and written about activity of showering with the widely known and written devices that support that activity? And when people go to look for shower as in rain, do you think it appropriate that shower stall be brought up? As it stands, when people search for the essentially equally popular meanings of shower being (1) brief fall of rain, (2) shower stall/room, (3) shower washing activity, and (4) a party given for a bestowal of presents, they bring up the present article on shower stall. How does this meet the disamb policy? Why should there not be an article dedicated to talking about the stall and the other three well known meanings. Please give this some thought and reconsider your reactive decisions. Thanks. Williamhortner (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think showering is definitely notable enough to have its article. I didn't see any discussion about moving this page so I asked someone to revert. If there was in fact a discussion about moving this page to shower (stall) please lead me to it. Believe me, I did not get your move reverted as bad intention. I hope you don't think it was my bad intention. I really would like to revert the merge into this article, but I'm not so sure if others agree, you have my support about showering being an independent article. I can't see how it can't be. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that this isn't the clear primary use. Simply applying a scheme which works for an entirely different set of words doesn't immediately strike me as a good solution either. In the case of bath there is at least one other very obvious non-dictdef primary use, the town. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, take note!

It occured to me that if someone looking for the Showers related to weather(too general word, i think), they will not find what they are looking for. Suggesting an ambugiation(sp?) page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.14.74 (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

"One thousand hot showers will never make up one cold shower, yet one thousand cold showers will always make up one hot shower."--64.9.235.95 (talk) 02:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

A bit too much

The picture of "woman taking a shower" seems not to be fit here. Although it is understandable that some articles must show nudity because it is a crucial aspect for understanding its contents, I believe the picture in question can be offensive to some viewers because it explicitly shows parts of the body that are considered improper for public appearances. I suggest that it is replaced by another picture that clearly depicts a person taking a shower, but hides parts like nipples, sexual organs and the such. Veron Skye (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC) Veron Skye

I don't find the sexuality inherent in a woman's body to be offensive or cause for removal, but I do agree that the inclusion of this image is a little spurious. It does not significantly add to the article, which technically, ought to be about the mechanical contraption that dumps water on our heads. I'd motion for that picture to be removed. There is already a relevant and informative picture of a shower in the article. 71.163.13.174 (talk) 04:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I have no qualms about nudity where relevant to the article, but this isn't. I also note that it's been removed once before. I've removed it again. Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Nudity and Related Topics?

Is a shower really a related topic? Perhaps there isn't enough content to justify splitting the article between the cultural practice and the plumbing fixture, but the box at the bottom seems out of place to me. Thoughts? --Phaethon 0130 (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

this is not related to nudity, AFAIK. At most, a link to the article on nudity or naturism from this article might be good.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Chemical/Radiological showers

What about showers designed for chemical or radiological decontamination after terrorist or military attacks? Where would such equipment fit into the present articles? --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

picture should show shower, not toilet, sink, and shower curtain

Could someone with a decent-looking shower maybe take and upload a picture of it to replace the one that is currently at the top of the page? If someone didn't know what a shower looked like, the current picture wouldn't be too helpful for them! Emika22 (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Info about the section of Times of showers....

--- Mornig ---

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+morning+shower&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--124.78.231.99 (talk) 11:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+morning+bath&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+morning+bathing&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--124.78.231.99 (talk) 11:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

--- Night ---

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+night+shower&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--124.78.231.99 (talk) 11:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+night+bathing&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+night+showering&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--124.78.231.99 (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

--- Daytime ---

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+daytime+shower&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--124.78.231.99 (talk) 11:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+daytime+bath&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+daytime+bathing&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--124.78.231.99 (talk) 11:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Shower Sex?

Sorry if that strikes anyone as vulgar, but it IS a common use for showers with extensive cultural significance, and something that showers are associated with in a number of contexts. 99.178.81.144 (talk) 03:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Bans on Luxury Showers in USA

There is info on this page regarding the recent (2010) ban on luxury/therapeutic showers in USA that use more than 10 litres per min, how about letting me put info that luxury showers are NOT banned in UK, etc? Tri400 (talk) 09:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

For anyone else reading this, you are referring to the ref now added to Luxury good (well done there, that section can be expanded over time, I think):

Power, Stephen (21 July 2010). "A Water Fight Over Luxury Showers". New York: Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 8 December 2010.

In view of the surprise described in the article, there is already an implication that this sort of restriction is not (yet) widespread. No objection at all, I think, to finding another similarly reliable, independent reference which mentions regulation or lack thereof in other countries. The problem may be that "Luxury Showers Still Not Banned in Britain" is not exactly going to be top news! (edit) I think something like the current sentence at LG with the ref could be added to this article too: that gives you or someone else the chance to find another reference and expanded it later... --Mirokado (talk) 00:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Image with caption "The plumbing for a shower being put down"

The image with the caption "The plumbing for a shower being put down" is NOT of plumbing for a shower, but almost certainly for two sinks (wash basins). Image deleted. Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

History?

Are there any sources on the history of showers as standard fixtures? When does it become common? 150.243.14.39 (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Showerhead Threading Standard

What do you think of adding showerhead threading standards here? I've been searching for showerhead standards. Near as I can figure, based on what's for sale and what I've used, in North America (well, Alberta, Canada, anyways), when you buy a shower head with hose at the store, the hose is threaded 1/2"-14 which I think means the standard nominal measurement of 1/2" with 14 threads per inch. I'm not positive if that's NPT. Anyone got any more information? It's what I came to this article hoping to find!

Respiratory Dangers

There's a report (link to mentioning of a study follows) that the government-forced extermination of proper-flow showerhead manufacturing has lead to increased respiratory illness rates. If anyone has the time to verify that this isn't just unsubstantiated raving, should it be added in? http://www.freeexistence.org/highflow.html

Western bias

I was surprised that this article was almost entirely from a Western perspective. Other cultures shower. The Japanese shower to wash, and bathing is a post shower experience. In their case, they utilized self poured water from a bucket until modern plumbing became available.

I hate to be the person to raise an issue but not do anything about it, but I came to this article looking for information and I don't have the knowledge to fix the problem. But it is a worthwhile and important topic. It deserves to be treated well. I do hope someone with more expertise can be found to round out the article.

Thanks for all that put this article together. Even though it has large holes, it is still very informative.

Ignatios2000 (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Reorganise the Types > Other section of this article?

Is there a better way of describing / organising the modern shower devices / systems? eg power, mixer, digital, electric etc? I added them to the Types > Other section, but wonder whether these systems / devices would be better off in their own section? Thoughts? (I'm new here!) Hazelwhicher (talk) 12:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Shower. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101130180409/http://theplumber.com/standup.html to http://theplumber.com/standup.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.plumbingworld.com/historyamerica.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120112085519/http://www3.chu-rouen.fr/NR/rdonlyres/A49A08FD-BA50-4B11-AA92-ECE9492BC247/0/2000_feltgen.pdf to http://www3.chu-rouen.fr/NR/rdonlyres/A49A08FD-BA50-4B11-AA92-ECE9492BC247/0/2000_feltgen.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/myths/shower_vs_bath.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2019

Please add the below information to the shower page.

Water Performance In some situations a shower pump is needed to improve the water performance of your shower. This will often be when your plumbing system relies on gravity (gravity fed system) to move the water around your home and you aren’t getting the power shower experience that you are looking for. Alternatively if your plumbing system is mains fed you might experience a drop in performance from your shower at certain times of the day, when demand for water in your street is high. A mains booster pump can prevent this. Sometimes the refurbishment of a bathroom and the introduction of a larger shower heads or higher end shower can result in water pressure problems. Research by Salamander Pumps discovered that 48.5% of home owners in the UK don’t realise that they can do something to improve water performance to their shower. SalamanderPumps (talk) 10:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. In addition, this appears to be a promotional edit using a promotional user name. General Ization ^Talk 12:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

daily showers not beneficial to health

I'm not going to do the deep dive on whether these sources are enough to change the Cultural Significance section about how it's for promoting health and preventing disease and infection. I'm just going to drop these here. No doubt the pro-showering cabal will show up and attempt to stop me because their inferior skin microbiomes don't confer them the wisdom of the ancestors like mine does. They will likely also call me stinky. https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20240423-theres-no-need-to-shower-every-day-heres-why https://www.webmd.com/beauty/shower-how-often https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/showering-daily-is-it-necessary-2019062617193 MarshallKe (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Needle showers

What are they? 195.187.108.130 (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)