Talk:Portable toilet

Old comments from 2005 and 2006

I object to the assertion that porta-pottys "do not overflow". From unfortunate experience I can confirm that it IS possible to fill a porta-potty to overflowing.

We have portajohns at my deployed base with both toilet paper and/or hand gel dispensers, but you're right, saying "most" have them is definitely not accurate. is it sandycan or sannycan anyway Thehappysmith 08:47, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The photo caption is correct in its implication that overturning a port-a-john is considered strongly unacceptable behavior; is there any way to say so using NPOV language? ShawnVW 17:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The photo has been changed, but perhaps something about overturning port-a-johns could still be said in the article?--Koeppen 00:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed article on portable toilet chemicals

I believe that someone should add an article to the portable toilet page on chemicals, I know that in most states a formaldehyde based chemical is used and is very effective at smell reduction. In California environmental laws prohibit the use of such chemicals so an environmentally friendly enzyme designed to decompose waste is used with varying results.

Proposed Portable Toilet Review Blog

I was looking at the portable toilet forum a few days ago and ran across a great article on portable toilets, the owner of a portable toilet company has been writing about his experiences with different portable toilet models for the last year. It's great info for anyone looking to rent/buy a portable toilet. I can find no other article that actually reviews the portable toilets, they all review the companies instead (lame). http://www.rentajohn.net/portable-toilet-blog.html

Proposed move to portable toilet

I think the article should be moved to Portable toilet as it is more encyclopedic (as there is an article for flatulence and not fart) and avoids specific region specific slang (In NZ they are called port-a-loos and never port-a-john). --Clawed 10:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Portable toilet would be a more generic and encyclopedic name for this article. -- Amoore 03:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

What about chemical toilet

Also agreed, its at a totally america-centric title right now. And they're also called portaloo's here (ireland). --Kiand 03:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I have now moved the page and reworded it to reflect the change --Clawed 04:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree Jmm6f488 14:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed picture replacement

I think the picture on this article is not at all encyclopedic, and should be replaced. The picture's focus is not on the portable toilet but on the two fellows having fun on top of it.

I've now replaced the port-a-john tipping picture with one more "appopriate".--Koeppen 00:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Weight?

Could someone dig up weight figures for a standard Portable Toilet? I think it might be important shall me and my budies decide to try to move one (we're considering a big get-together and a place to use the bathroom will be important).

They weigh approx 200lbs, http://blacktieservices.com/portable_toilets.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.37.23.2 (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Masking Tape

What if someone put masking tape around a portable potty? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wayne Neptune (talk • contribs) 20:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Peoples in the tropics are less sanitary??

The article says " ... odor that builds up within the enclosure can quickly reach an unbearable level, especially in tropical climates, where users' behavior (as well as aiming capabilities) can quickly soil a newly disinfected unit." Is this supposed to imply that people who live in the tropics have less sanitary behavior, and don't aim as well as people in other latitudes? Are we supposed to gather that they're less civilized down there? I suggest that that statement be reworked. 71.241.228.118 (talk) 14:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Who wrote this?

"This is probably due to the fact that the ventilation units are too weak to oust foul-smelling air fast enough, and have a open air duct (without compromising privacy) to allow fresh air in. Consequently, use is akin to a self-imprisonment with one's excrement - especially if one has a habit of taking a long time to defecate." The first sentence doesn't make sense; it looks like someone tried to tack one point on a completely different one that just happened to look related. The second is just inane--especially the second half of it; if it's unpleasant in there, whatever your "habit" is, you're motivated to hurry up. And the next person might be grateful for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.228.118 (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

portable wet toilets

It seems there are also portable "wet" (that is hooked up to a water supply and the drains somehow, the latter hookup often involving the waste pipe entering a manhole thorough a custom cover) toilets, usually in the form of a portacabin (or equivilent) with a number of toilets in it. These usually seem to be used for medium term needs (such as when the permanent toilet block it being refurbished or similar). 86.22.248.209 (talk) 20:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Removal Of Tardis

Though I'm a big fan of Dr Who, I don't think anyone from the UK calls a portable toilet "Tardis" I believe this company might be using the wiki to further their website. I'm not in the UK so I won't delete it. If anyone can verify that Tardis isn't a real term??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bseiffert (talk • contribs) 23:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

A "Tardis" Is A Real Term

Im from the UK, i have heard of people using that term before, i think its the same as what portakabin did with the term "portaloo" plus a portable toilet is the same kind of shape as a Tardis so it makes sense for a company to play on that a bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DSReeves (talk • contribs) 08:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

"Portable toilets on a mountain in China"?

I may be entirely wrong, but the toilets in the picture captioned as above do not look at all like portable toilets to me. Even if Chinese portable toilets don't look like US/UK toilets, I doubt they look like that. Those are pretty clearly cobbed-together camp-site type permanent toilets. Perhaps they are chemical toilets, but at least one appears to be sitting on a concrete slab that forms the floor and steps up to it. I'd hate to be the guy who has to move several tons of concrete around to move a toilet. The rust around the base of the toilet bowl also suggests a permanent fixture. We have toilets like this in the parks around here; some are flush toilets, some chemical, some are just outhouses. All are very lightly-built and flimsy, and not exactly "permanent", but they definitely are not intended to be portable...and most of them aren't built on concrete foundations either. .45Colt 05:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

strong box

the first patent for plastic portable toilets was not in the 1960's to Polyjohn Enterprises Corporation but to Harvey Heather of what is now JW Enterprises in the 1950's. It was a solid molded portable toilet rented to construction sites. It was called the "strong box". Harvey Heather used to be partners with George from Polyjohn. George developed the modern portable toilet after and allowed us- JW Enterprises to be the first to ever manufacture them in 1961. I have pictures of the units we now hand out as piggy banks to our customers. Feel free to contact us 800-350-3331 ext 210 Frank Lindstrom or Polyjohn Enterprises Corp to confirm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.198.95.18 (talk) 20:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Elsan & similar

The article appears be only about portable rooms with hard walls. It seems to say nothing about portable "thrones" - see for example http://www.elsan.co.uk/ (Bristol/Oxford) which are not uncommonly used in the UK in conjunction with "Toilet Tents". I believe, without much evidence, that earlier models of throne were provided in WWII UK heavy bombers.

An article on portable thrones should refer to the self-explanatory "thunderbox" commonly used (by us) in British India a century or more ago, and to the portable seats used with pits.

Alternatively, this article should have links for those.

I know nothing of corresponding US or other habits.

94.30.84.71 (talk) 12:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

A cutaway drawing of an Avro Lancaster showing the Elsan chemical toilet (No. 142 "Elsan closet") in the rear of the fuselage just ahead of the tailwheel, here: [1]

.. according to Michael Bentine in The Long Banana Skin, some fun-loving crews would 'top-up' the container and then remove and then throw the complete Elsan out of the rear crew entry door when over the target. This practice was ordered stopped by the RAF after complaints from Germany via the Swiss Red Cross after examining the crumpled tin containers, and their contents, as it was feared the practice could have led to accusations that the British were using chemical warfare. It was also costing the RAF a small-fortune in replacing the Elsans.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.124 (talk) 09:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Move content from "portable toilet" page to chemical toilet and re-work portable toilet page

This article is currently all about chemical toilets only. So I think the content should be moved to there and the article on portable toilets should be expanded to explain the full concept of portable toilets (which may or may not be a chemical toilet). I have put the equivalent comment also on the talk page of chemical toilets In my opinion e.g. a bucket toilet is also a portable toilet. Portable in my opinion equals "mobile" - whichever technology is used. EvMsmile (talk) 12:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, User:Carbon Caryatid. I see you've worked on this article (great, thanks!). What do you think of the suggestion I made in October about this article? See above. EvMsmile (talk) 08:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is one of those times when - having raised it on the talk pages -- you just need to be bold and go for it. I've made some comments on the PS talk. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, done. Needs further work (for this article and also for the article on chemical toilets).EvMsmile (talk) 03:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Honeywagon merge proposal (Oct 2015)

I propose that the section of honeywagon on use in TV and film industry is moved to portable toilet. This section of the honeywagon article talks about trailer-mounted, portable toilet blocks not about the vacuum trucks referred to in the lead. Little pob (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support as nominee Little pob (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support, makes sense to use the clearer term of "portable toilet" (which needs to be however restructured to cover more than just chemical toilets)EvMsmile (talk) 00:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Now that I have re-structured things, I would rather merge that to chemical toilet but in any case, it is poorly referenced, so I would say let's just delete that part. EvMsmile (talk) 03:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Main (only ) image

I'm so glad that this article has got a clearer mandate. I'm not sure about the Nature's Head image, though; I'm unfamiliar with the brand, but the caption indicates that the unit has not yet been installed. Once it is, doesn't that make it no longer portable? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we need more images. I have a few more in mind by SOIL Haiti, I think they are already in Commons, will check. I think the caption was unnecessarily long, have shortened it. The toilet will look exactly the same one it's installed, only that it would probably not be in the middle of the room but next to a wall. But we can look for better photos, too. EvMsmile (talk) 07:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I found the images I was thinking of on Commons (I had them uploaded there a while ago). You find more similar ones by putting SOIL Haiti into the search field in Commons or search for EcoLakay. Maybe we replace the image of the Nature Head toilet with this one? Or should we start up a gallery? As the article is so far only short, I guess we can't have more than one photo, unless we set up a gallery, perhaps? EvMsmile (talk) 07:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Two problems: first of all, the article now has two photos, both of which are of UDDTs. Surely, for an article of this brevity and with several sections, there should be no more than one of each type? I.e. let's aim for one photo per section. Secondly, my original point: a toilet that is "installed" sounds to me as if it is not portable. Am I misunderstanding? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, only one photo is better while the article is still short. So which one to keep? I suggest to keep the one from Haiti and remove the one from USA. "Installed" in this case simply means the toilet is put in the correct place of the house - it doesn not mean that it is "connected" in any way and therefore it remains fully portable. If we take the photo from Haiti, then this issue of "installed" or not, does not arise. - Done. EvMsmile (talk) 01:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Good choice. Thanks for the explanation. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 12:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

We need to sort out the redirects to this page

I just saw that lots of terms redirect to this page which should now redirect to chemical toilet, see here: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Portable_toilet&hidelinks=1&hidetrans=1 Like Port-a-potty and things like that. Do you agree with me? If yes, can you get it done, or I will do it later (whoever gets to it first). EvMsmile (talk) 07:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Most of them are various spellings of portapotty. When Americans hear/see the word, they think of privy-style structures moved by truck; in the British context, the word means the small item that can be carried in one hand. So whether these terms redirect to chemical toilet or portable toilet, readers need to see quickly that they might be on the wrong page, and how to get to the right one. If it's possible, the redirects should go to the relevant section of the article, e.g. Portable toilet#Camping. Another possibility is for all the spelling variants (and mis-spellings) of portapotti to go to a new disambiguation page, saying simply, you may be thinking of the large structure or the small unit.

Those terms that are not variants of portapotty, e.g. Elsan, need to go to the right section. I am not feeling enthused to tackle this right now....Carbon Caryatid (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I had a look at Google Images when putting in portapotty and it seems in general to be chemical toilets: https://www.google.com.au/search?q=portapotty&rlz=1C1WYIB_enDE505DE505&espv=2&biw=1680&bih=925&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwik577IrKHNAhVlLKYKHWKeA7gQsAQIUg So I think redirecting portapotty to chemical toilet probably makes the most sense. (most chemical toilets are also portable toilets, so there is a bit of overlap there) EvMsmile (talk) 01:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

No objections, but don't let Google's filter bubble dictate the results. Look what I get when I enter "portapotty" - a similar but not identical range of photos, and completely different ones at the top: here. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 12:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

New (Camping) section

I have re-added the material deleted in error in the overhaul of this article and chemical toilet. These small toilets could be considered one or the other, portable or chemical, but they certainly need to go somewhere. I've added a couple of extra sentences for context. I'm not happy with the title I've given the section, but I don't know what else to call it. The most used names in Britain are brand names, Portapotty and Elsan, and that doesn't seem very encyclopedic. I note the comments above re the WWII planes, and the old thunderboxes; if I find more info on these, I'll add it. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand this sentence: "although in fact this "Elsan" type no longer resembles an open bucket" - never heard of "Elsan" before. If you want to keep this word here, then please explain it. But it's probably a brand name so I don't think we need to keep it? And yes, the section title "camping" is not fitting, as we're talking here about "types of toilet". What type exactly are you talking about? Can you had a photo? Otherwise perhaps it should rather fall under a section heading called "applications". EvMsmile (talk) 01:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll try re-wording, with citations from the OED. The trouble is that brand names are sometimes the most widely used term, and it would not help readers to avoid the names entirely (cf "I'll just google that"). It is definitely a type of toilet at least as distinctive as all the others we've been dealing with. I'll have to search harder on Commons for an image. Or see above, what my filter bubble served up. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 12:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The only image I can find is the one I added to chemical toilet; it's far from ideal, as it shows many models in a marine shop. Searching for "camping toilet" brings up similar devices on the web, but not on WikiCommons. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure in which countries "Elsan" is a well known brand name, but not in the countries I've been active in, e.g. not in Germany (nor in developing countries). I honestly have never heard about it before. That's hwy I asked for a photo. Please also see my question on the talk page of Elsan: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Elsan EvMsmile (talk) 04:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I've added a lot more now (content, definitions, references, and images), about both the type in common use in Britain now, and a separate section for its historic precedents. I hope the wording is clear. It isn't correct to describe "camping" as an application; it is a distinct type of chemical & portable toilet. Can we agree to remove "applications" and give Elsan/Portapotti its own section? Probably the least contentious title is "camping toilet" (or maybe "camp toilet"). Carbon Caryatid (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Awesome, the page is fast getting better and better! I have moved the information on camping toilets to be below chemical toilets, as it's a type of chemical toilet. I have elevated the history section because we can build this up further (not just history of camping toilets). But I am not so sure about your use of this website as a reference: http://www.campingandcaravanningclub.co.uk/helpandadvice/gettingstarted/campingequipment/toilets/ It is not really a very reputable reference, is it? And why the lengthy notes in the references section, I think that gives further undue weight to this particular website. I don't think those notes are needed here. EvMsmile (talk) 12:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Glad you like it! And yes, separating the history makes sense. I guess camping toilets are a "type of". I think the section title could be abbreviated, though, because the context and the image make it clear. Just "camping toilet", as a subset of chemical toilet, I think.

The Camping and Caravanning Club was founded in 1902 and is one of the British "go-to" places for information about, well, camping and caravanning, so their views on terminology bear some weight. As for including the quotes, I tucked them away in the notes and didn't try to integrate them into the main text. Webpages change, and I think it's a service to our readers (let along fellow editors in the future), to let them see what the sources actually said, if they want to look. It's like notes in printed books - when they used to be at the end of every page, some people found their eyes got distracted, but once publishers decided to put them at the end of the book, the chapters just flowed better. Nobody has to scroll all the way down if they don't want to. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)