Talk:Public toilet

Washroom

A washroom is a room containing more than just a toilet.

It may contain toilets, sinks, urinals, and hand dryers, etc., and it seems like it could be a good superset of just "toilet".

I'd welcome your comments, thoughts, ideas, etc.. Glogger 04:35, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nonetheless, we have an article on toilet that refers to rooms containing all those things. Observe that restroom redirects there. (Or at least, it did, before you turned it into a double redirect -- which does not work, by the way). - RedWordSmith 21:09, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Redirect

Sorry about the double redirect. My mistake.

Toilet, Urinal, Shower, ...

In the long run, I think it would be good to make an entry for "Toilet", an entry for "Urinal" (there is already one), and for "Shower" (there is already one), each talking about the specific fixtures, and then move content that talks about the overall environment into the superset "Washroom". That's what I also did with "Changeroom", e.g. I created an entry for the superset, and then specific cases (like "Fitting room") could be linked in from that.

I don't think "Toilet" should be an article about urinals, hand dryers, sinks, and showers as well. But I do think there is room for an overarching "umbrella" article that covers all of these, and I think that could be "Washroom" or maybe "Washroom architecture" (to keep it focused on the broad contextual concepts like space management, design, traffic flow optimization, etc.). Glogger 04:22, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The thing is washroom/restroom/bathroom are predominantly American usage. The rest of the world are quite happy to call it a toilet. Mintguy (T) 09:15, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Whatever it is called it is important to clearly differentiate between a toilet "device" or toilet "fixture" and the room containing the toilet, the toilet "room". Appending the suffix "room" to whatever generic name is chosen should be sufficient.

toilet fixture and toilet room are already two differnt articles. --Yejianfei (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Washroom architecture

I originally created a Wikipedia entry for "Washroom".

I apologize for not making the distinction from "Toilet" clear in my writing (my entry for "Washroom" was deleted and replaced with a Redirect to "Toilet", presumaby because I wasn't clear in my distinction).

I've created the entry "Washroom architecture" and re-written it to reflect the need for a Wikipedia entry that deals with the design of public washroom spaces, and not just flush toilets.

The "Toilet" entry deals primarily with residential tank type toilets, and although it covers also some other kinds of toilets, it does not address the general topic of commercial washroom space design and facility design, such as traffic throughput, labyrinth entrances, and the like.

Hopefully this new article will be of use to others.

If anyone would like to delete this article, please put it on VfD rather than just deleting it, because that way we can get a peer review on whether it's really redundant or badly written. Glogger 23:45, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Restroom

I note that restroom redirects here. Just thought I'd mention that here in the UK, a restroom can sometimes mean what it says - for example, the school nurse's room at my high school (with a bed, but not a toilet) was called the "restroom", and this usage is not particularly rare. I'd do something about the redirect if I had a good idea of what that might be! Loganberry | Talk 12:16, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Where does the term "restoom" come from ?'

Wow, that's odd. In the western portion of the United States, a "restroom" is used for a public room with a toilet and sink. A few restrooms have showers, but those are rare. Restroom in the United States would never connote a public room with a bed; that would be a lounge or bedroom.

Does anyone know exactly where "washroom" is in use as the dominant term? On the West Coast, "restroom" is the dominant term," and from what I've seen of Europe (5 visits so far, to the UK, France, Switzerland, and Italy), "WC" or "toilet" (or a local translation) seems to be the dominant terms there. It would be nice to know so that the article introduction can correctly denote which dialects of English are using what. --Coolcaesar 11:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

In most of the US, the dominant term is "restroom". In Commonwealth [?] English, the dominant term is "washroom", including Canada, which is odd because Canadian vocabulary usually coincides to American English much closer than to British English. (However, the orthography of Canadian English is mostly British.) I've also heard "washroom" used in the American South. For what it's worth I think altering the redirect wouldn't be prudent since about 300 million people call it a restroom, even though in the UK it can "sometimes" mean, in "not particularly rare" usage, something else entirely. If the usage is common enough and not merely an obsolete regionalism, you could put a note at the top: "Restroom redirects here. Restroom can also mean a nurse's office in my high school."  :)

Washroom is not the dominant term in British English. The normal term would simply be 'public toilet', 'toilets', or 'WC'. I can't think of anyone who'd say washroom or restroom, and I don't think I've ever seen it on signs either. BovineBeast

Don't worry, here comes the lexicographer/linguist/pain in the neck. Based on my corpus international data, I can conclude that washroom absolutely is NOT a Briticism, any! It's most definitely an Americanism that appears to have been imported to some extent by Britons and Australians, especially in commercial or formal usage. The word was coined in the U.S. in the early 19th century and fell somewhat out of everyday use in the last 30/40 years in the U.S., but remained the preferred term in Canada. JackLumber 12:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Why *is* Restroom used in the US? As stated elsewhere, most people would not want to rest in a room where others are urinating & defecating? Markb (talk) 14:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

And why *is* "restroom" used, for instance in the description of symbols, in this public toilet article? The article is about public toilets, places for urinating and defecating. The euphamism "rest" seems unencylopedic.--Timtak (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

"Washroom" is the term used in Canada, though people understand the other terms as well. I read elsewhere that the term originated in the U.K., though (like "Water Closet") it may no long be used there. I think it is unlikely that Canada (and other Commonwealth countries) would have adopted the term from the City of Chicago (no offense to the city of Chicago, of course). Perhaps if someone has some definitive documentation to the contrary, it would be useful to post that. Certainly Americans visiting Canada today are rather confused by the word.

"Certainly Americans visiting Canada today are rather confursed by the word" Huh? Washroom, while not the most common of terms for a restroom, is certainly understood by the vast majority of Americans. Indeed, in grade school in Indiana that's what we called them. Indeed, check out http://www.thomasnet.com/indiana/partitions-toilet-restroom-bathroom-washroom-lavatory-57220402-1.html and you'll see this incredibly obscure term prominently listed amongst those apparently confusing terms restroom and bathroom for commercial suppliers of lavoratory fittings (yes, we Americans know that term too) right here in the good ol' USA. As for rest, many ladies restrooms indeed used to (at one time at least) have a couch for women to rest upon during, well, you know that time of the month. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.164.201 (talk) 03:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Canadian English is a mixture of U.S. and British words and spellings. And in some cases, both U.S. and British words are used. For instance, in Canada, you can have a "chesterfield", a "couch" or a "sofa". Hsdonnelly (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Captions are too long

And unfortunantely, they're very interesting. ;-) I'm going to try to cut them down a little bit. Ambush Commander 02:41, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Requested Move 2005

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

It was suggested that this article should be renamed Washroom. The vote is shown below:

Copied from WP:RM Dragons flight 00:24, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Someone moved it a long time ago but the title "washroom" would make much more sense. Andrew pmk 17:57, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

As an American, I would rather prefer a move of this article to "restroom," the American term. Washroom sounds so British! --Coolcaesar 01:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, per my note above, "Washroom" is used in the US South, although much Southern diction is quite British in flavor. (Flavour?) "I do declare!" Beetter "washroom" than "washroom architecture", that's for certain. Though I, too, would prefer "restroom", although the rabble-rousing British, Australian, etc. speaking masses would doubtless have other ideas about that. But hey I'm just an anonymous user, my opinion doesn't matter.

This article has been renamed after the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 10:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Southern States don't use the word washroom because it's British. They use it because it's *American*. See my above post. And Coolcaesar, I'm really surprised! Why does "washroom" sound British to you? My California Lawyer, you shall go to the washroom, wash your clothes and bathe in water and be unclean until evening. JackLumber 12:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I just ran some Google searches to find out what is the majority usage. The Northern, Midwest, Western and Northwest states all use "restroom." There's even an American Restroom Association! It's only the South that uses "washroom"---it's also the South that has weird food like "grits." --Coolcaesar 18:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Got a couple quotations by a Californian. "He danced him over the ironing tables, the stove, and the mangles, and out into the wash-room and over the wringer and washer." "Bill's job was in the wash-room." (Jack London). Not exactly yesterday. The OED has a quotation from the U.S. dating back to the 1970's (Chicago, if I recall correctly---I don't have it at hand right now), and the last one is, duh, from Canada. But remember---the British couldn't have coined "washroom," that would have been "washing room" :-) JackLumber 20:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

As a linguist, I love the South, their accent, and their contributions to the language. (Although "washroom" comes probably from New England; but I don't like grits, especially for breakfast.)

Washroom is not a British term. If you said "washroom" in the UK I think most people would interpret that as being some sort of laundry. [Public] toilet, public lavatory, public convenience would be the more usual terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.72.129 (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"Backworld" ?

Exactly what in the bloody hell does this term mean? There is no Wikipedia entry, nothing to be found in Webster's, at dictionary.com and not even at urbandictionary.com. If it's a neologism, someone please give some reference material for it. In the meantime, I'm removing it, as I feel it has negative connotations and thus is not NPOV. --dfg 19:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

"Someone erroneously thinks that washroom is not an Americanism"

I've lived in America all my life and have never once heard nor used the term "washroom". The word we use is "restroom". Washroom is used in Canada, not the US. So stop calling "washroom" an Americanism.

The word we use? We who? The English lexicon comprises several hundreds of thousands of words, and many thousands (like washroom, or restroom in that sense, for that matter) are Americanisms. So why don't you try to boost your vocabulary skills and, while you're at it, get some information on the culture and heritage of our Nation? Shame on you. If there's something I can't stand, it's nescience. That's all there is. --JackLumber 20:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Isn't Canada part of America? --Kjb (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure restroom, the "institutional" term, is much more common than washroom, but the two words can happily coexist. If you like the Internet, well, the Internet has a slew of examples in this respect. JackLumber 22:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC) Read, learn, little rugrat. It's called culture.

Sometimes, in my area (Michigan), whenever someone refers to the washroom, they're usually referring to the laundry room, not the bathroom or restroom. This usage seems to be more common. How common is this usage in other areas? --141.213.178.11 04:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

"Washroom" used instead of "Laundry Room"

I live in Gulf Coastal Mississippi, and I've only heard the word "washroom" used when referring to a laundry room. I really think this usage should be added to the article... --Celtic Jobber 05:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy Services in Public Restrooms

Sometimes there are people in restrooms, usually men's washrooms, and particularly at places like fancy restaurants, country clubs and gentlemen's clubs where there are people who dispense the soap for you, give you a towel, offer mints and cigarettes, and usually seek tips for their services. They also maintain order and cleanliness.

Should there be mention of these people. I'm not entirely familiar with the subject and I'm not sure if this should be made a separate article (like the Toilet grannys) or not. However, I think it is worth mentioning. Comments? 131.156.238.75 00:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This varies from country to country. In some countries, like Italy, it is customary for practically every large public restroom to have an attendant on duty at all times, and it is traditional to tip the attendant. In others, like the United States, restroom attendants are found only at very, very upscale establishments (the kind frequented by fabulously wealthy celebrities and socialites), which is why most public restrooms are in such decrepit shape in the U.S. I certainly agree the subject is worth mentioning, but it needs to be explained in a way that is in compliance with both the worldwide view guideline and the Verifiability and No Original Research policies! --Coolcaesar 06:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

cottaging

why no mention of it in this article? is this an example of self-censorship, as i always thought wikipedia was uncensored? cottaging in public toilets is surely significant and commonplace enough to be worthy of mention 212.159.101.129 13:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia official policies, such as Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which states that Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox or an indiscriminate collection of random information! --Coolcaesar 17:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

There is now a reasonably well-referenced section. Slowly but surely the encyclopedia expands. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

World record for the biggest public washroom?

I heard that there was an official world record for the largest public washroom in China. Should we put that in? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.144.186.32 (talk) 22:02:39, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

If it's adequately referenced, I can't see a reason for not doing so. --Taraborn (talk) 11:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Lighting

I have no idea whether this is common in other countries, but in larger Norwegian cities, pubs with restrooms that are easily accessible from the street commonly install blue or purplish light in them, ostensibly because the light makes it harder to locate a vein, making the restroom less attractive to heroin addicts. I've been told by unreliable sources that it has absolutely no effect. Besides, considering Norwegian drinking habits, most patrons would be too wasted to notice or care about a passed-out junkie... DES (talk) 12:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Toilet has a photo. --Error (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Secondary use

Something should be said about its secondary uses. For example, as a men-only area, they were the only places to buy fireworks in some society I forgot. Men's restrooms were frequented by gays looking for sex, before the gay liberation. In some discos and night clubs, restrooms, as a somehow private area are used for drug trade and consumption or impromptu sex. --Error (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

white toilet seat

required by law in some states? wha? explain.♠♦Д narchistPig♥♣ (talk) 05:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Squat toilets

Anyone else think we should put a picture of a squat toilet to balance out the picture of a sitting toilet? Squat toilets are the normn in some Asian countries and are far more likely to be encounter in a public toilet then a sitting one. Nil Einne (talk) 09:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this suggestion. Some photos are available in Commons (see also under flush toilet or squat toilet.EvM-Susana (talk) 07:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Disability

Some of us don't like being referred to as "the disabled", so I've fixed it to "people with disabilities", OK? Also, I've removed a couple of occurrences of "spouse", since a) someone's spouse isn't necessarily of a different gender to them, and b) spouses can act as caregivers, so it's otiose to separate them out. IMHO, of course... Kay Dekker (talk) 21:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Restrooms / Washrooms

In most of the towns the people had to walk to church, their meetings (Eagles, Odd Fellows, and other organizations like this (with some having women's auxiliary members too), political meetings, etc). Because of them having to travel by foot (and occasionally by horse or horse and buggy/wagon) they had to travel over unpaved roads and the dust and dirt (snow in winter, mud and rain in rainy times). [remember that paved roads didn't begin to be in existence until around 1910 when I believe the first paved road came into being in Ohio] By the time they arrived in town they were a "mess" and oftentimes really sweaty -- both their clothes and themselves, as well as being very tired due to the time (usually hours) it took to go from home to town.

Because of this, in most ALL of the towns they had "rest rooms" where the men and women could go and sit and relax (sometimes eating), and also go to freshen up or wash up (sometimes to bathe) and change their clothes so they would look nice and presentable when they went to the church or their meetings. In my over 50yrs of researching and reading of newspapers, diaries, letters, books, etc I came across the earliest mentions of these restrooms in the late 1600s in Boston, Philadelphia and New York City. Since that time in history I have seen thousands of mentions of these and most all of them had the same items I mention in the one I found in a small town in Iowa in the late 60s (see below) [some didn't have the cots/beds or tubs]. Neither the restroom (or washrooms mentioned later on) were to be used for urination/defication -- those things were done in the outhouses. But they were used to get the people rested and back to smelling and looking better (brushing off dust from clothes, removing mud, etc). In the over 50yrs of research I never found the word "washroom" used to describe these areas for the public to rest up, etc. until after the 1900s.

The term "washroom(s)" was always used when they were describing a place where they could wash up before or after work (like a washroom in a butcher shop, cattle yards or where they slaughtered cattle, a place where they made things or assembled them (like furniture shops (the newer automobile shops), and other places of work where people would get dirty and want to wash up before and after work or before and after lunch, etc). The washroom only had sink and water (or bowl to pour water that was brought in from the streams and wells and used to wash hands and faces) -- occasionally a mirror. These were sized according to the number of persons working at that location -- sometimes small -- sometimes huge with lots of sinks or bowls. I never saw the term washroom (used in the same context as a restroom) in anything I read until the early 20th century -- always only in the context as I described previously.

In all my 60 yrs of living I have only come across one town (in 1969) that still had a restroom (even though I had read so many times about them and heard from so many elderly persons describing them and why they were there and what used for). This particular restroom still had the large area with couches and chairs for persons to rest up, the separate areas for men and women to wash up (wash bowls), groom (with mirrors), and an area to change clothes, etc. It had several rooms where a person could rent a cot or bed (these were in large rooms and you slept in the room with others of your same sex). It had a room (one room for each sex) with a tub if a person wanted to pay to have a bath. There was a HUGE area where there were long tables and chairs where people could fix their lunches (also had potbelly stove for warming up and a woodburning stove for warming up soup and water, etc.)

Later on the towns no longer needed these (what with the automobiles, gas stations and their restrooms, interstate rest stops, etc). After this particular town decided not to use it anymore, they rented it out for various purposes -- and I ended up renting it for a furnished "apartment".

Just a bit of trivia about how your ancestors lived their lives and where the word "restroom" came from and why they were used.

My sources? Over 50 yrs of research in newspapers, diaries, letters, books, interviewing elderly persons in thousands of towns across the USA, and finally finding one that was still in existence.

Judith Sandage Murphy

You have sources? PLEASE LIST THEM (in a proper format like Turabian). See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 2009

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was page moved. The issue of the proposed merge remains to be addressed and the text needs a good rewrite after the move. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

---

• Washroom → Public toilet —This page should be moved to Public toilet. Washroom is a local term maily used in Canada and partly in the US, where the usual term is restroom. Also, the word is ambiguous as it is often used for a toilet within a dwelling where (in Canada) a guest might politely ask the host where to find the washroom. Therefore, "Washroom should redirect to "Toilet". --Unsigned. 14:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• Here in England a washroom is a room for washing, a bathroom is a room with a bath in it, and a lavatory is a lavatory, and a toilet is a toilet; here we "call a spade a spade". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I thought you called it the WC ? 76.66.202.219 (talk) 04:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
• Rename to Public lavatory or Public washroom or Public restroom... be sure to use "public". 76.66.202.219 (talk) 04:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support rename to Public toilet. There may be even better names but the euphemism washroom is less suitable as so many English speakers would fail to recognise its meaning. This move may not be the last word (and discussion may suggest a better name) but it's a definite improvement. Andrewa (talk) 14:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support rename to Public toilet. It's the least ambiguous. There are "washrooms" where there is no place to wash (Movable units?), but certainly "restrooms" where there is no place to rest. "Lavatory" is dropping out of usage, in the U.S. at least. Piano non troppo (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support rename to Public toilet. The latter term is clear and better known internationally. odea (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support as well. As an American, I personally prefer "restroom" but I agree that "public toilet" is the most widely and easily understood compromise. --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Domestic toilet & bathroom

Have just read the main article and discussions on this subject. I'm born & bred British and now an Australian. I've never seen a sign saying 'Washroom' until a about 5 years ago and I thought it was a place to wash things (laundry). 'Restroom' has recently been sign-posted here (Americanisation of Australia) but people still say they're going to the 'toilet'; though I've occasionally heard 'Bathroom' (Americanisation of Australia). Unlike what we see on TV/films where Americans always seem to have to go to the Bathroom to use a toilet, we have a separate Toilet room (not WC, as on public signs) to the Bathroom. In other words, if you came to my home and asked for the Bathroom I would direct you to where you can have a wash; not to use a toilet. From my experience in Australia, having to go to a bathroom to use a toilet is rare. I think the problem with this article is one of a general nature in that this site is American in a global environment, and as such, your editors need to remove the insular nature of your people when dealing with non-American contributors to this forum. Molbrum (talk) 15:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Goddam FBI don't respect nothin'

Breathtaking Clarity

This article begins with this profound statement (after editing out all the crap, pun intended, in parentheses): "A public toilet is a public toilet facility..." Man, that is enlightening. One wonders what school children used for reference sources before wiki was invented. Guess a rose by any other name... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.164.201 (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

"Coolcaesar's Palace" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.244.120 (talk) 04:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Non-public non-domestic "washrooms"

So you have domestic facilities at home and "public" facilities in the street or the bus station or the sport stadium or the shopping mall. What about washrooms in places like office buildings and industrial facilities which are not open to "the public" but used by many workers. These are not "public toilets". What is the terminology for this ?Eregli bob (talk) 07:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Need to add more information about situation in developing countries

We should add more information about the situation in developing countries, where e.g. in urban slums people don't have a toilet at home but use a public toilet (or a shared toilet) for their daily needs. I will put it on my to-do list, or perhaps someone else will beat me to it which would be great. If someone is interested in this topic but doesn't know where to start reading, see here. EvM-Susana (talk) 07:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Moved recently added content about India to article on open defecation

Hi Hilnik, thanks for adding that information about India. It doesn't fit so well on this page, so I have moved it to the page on open defecation. It could also be added to the page on water supply and sanitation in India.EvM-Susana (talk) 09:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Question about style when using "see xxx"

Hi, User:Carbon Caryatid, I have a style question - I see you use this quite often where you say "see xxx" inside of the main text. I thought that's not good style and it would be better to embed the word that you want to link to in a naturally flowing text? For example, see the seconed sentence here: "The word "washroom" is used in some parts the United States for a "laundry room" or utility room. (See Wash house, a historic term for a public place to wash clothes, similar in function to a self-service laundry.)" And I don't think an entire sentence should appear in brackets? EvMsmile (talk) 09:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. There are two separate points. The first is a matter of style, and I'm surprised that I can't find clear guidance on it in WP:MOS, although it gives implicit permission in using this formulation multiple times itself. Here is a typical section beginning from the manual of style:

An article should begin with an introductory lead section, which should not contain section headings (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section). The remainder of the article may be divided into sections, each with a section heading (see below) that can be nested in a hierarchy.

I agree that ideally the whole text should flow naturally, and if an editor can make it so, then great. But where one can't, for whatever reason, it's better to include the information somehow, assuming that it does indeed add to the reader's understanding of the topic. The "see also" section is the main place, of course, but it may be more useful to tie the new link and concept more closely to the idea it sprung from , hence wash room --> wash house. If you think it's too disruptive, move it down, but my intention in adding parentheses was to tuck it away slightly.

Your second point is more grammatical. An entire sentence can indeed be enclosed. From Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Brackets_and_parentheses: "However, if the entire sentence is within brackets, the closing punctuation falls within the brackets. (This sentence is an example.)" and "It is often clearer to separate the thoughts into separate sentences or clauses". Carbon Caryatid (talk) 12:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Moved history section

I have moved the history section back to where it was, i.e. at the end of the article, as per MOS Wikiproject Sanitation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Sanitation) (by the way also same for MOS WikiProject Medicine). EvMsmile (talk) 12:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Use of restroom in article

And why *is* "restroom" used, for instance in the description of symbols, in this public toilet article? The article is about public toilets, places for urinating and defecating. The euphamism "rest" seems unencylopedic.--Timtak (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I have moved your comment to the end of this page as it got lost otherwise. I agree with you. Please change it throughout the article ("restroom" is to be explained as a term in the terminology section, but for the rest of the article we should consistently use "public toilet")- EvMsmile (talk) 10:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The term is used because that's what the AIGA uses, since restroom has always been the standard term in American English. Remember, under Wikipedia policies (WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V), we follow, we do not lead. Modifying those descriptions to create descriptions that do not exist in the underlying AIGA standards would clearly violate the requirement of verifiability and the prohibition on first publication of original research.

Also, referring to "rest" as an euphemism sounds quite provincial. It is, after all, the prevalent term used by the largest group of native English language speakers. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Public toilet. 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/20131101221044/http://news.plumbworld.co.uk/articles/6-amazing-public-toilets-around-the-world to http://news.plumbworld.co.uk/articles/6-amazing-public-toilets-around-the-world

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Merge pay toilet article to here

I think the content of the article on pay toilet should be moved to here. They are basically covering the same subject. Thoughts anyone? EvM-Susana (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

What's your opinion on this one, User:Carbon Caryatid? EvMsmile (talk) 09:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I hadn't read pay toilet before now. It's a hard call. There's certainly enough material there to justify an article, and I think the history of deciding who pays, how it became illegal to charge, etc. deserves documenting. We need to prevent useless overlap, but I don't see much of that at "pay toilet" although there might be some at public toilet. I'll look for policy guidance. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 11:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Here are the community reasons for merging. I'll have a think, and write more in a day or two. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 12:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

All "pay toilets" are public toilets, right? Whereas some public toilets are for free, others are not. I would say in general, the term "pay toilet" is not commonly used by anyone? We talk about public toilets which may or may not have a user fee attached to them. EvMsmile (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

You are correct that pay toilets are a subset of public toilets. The search term "pay toilet" gets many times more Ghits than, say, "coin operated toilet", but there may be other phrases I haven't thought of. I suggest you follow the procedure for merging, which may alert other interested editors. Once you have put the tags on, leave it for a while (a week or a month, depending on your patience) and then, if there are no objections, go ahead. My preference at this stage is not to merge, which I'll explain further once you've created the formal proposal. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. Have added the merge banner. EvMsmile (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

<unindent>Oppose. I've re-read both articles and have decided that I disagree with the merge proposal. The guidelines, linked again, give four possible reasons for merging; the one that seems most relevant is overlap.

There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept. For example, "flammable" and "non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on flammability.

I contend that the two articles do not overlap unduly. (I can't see any repeated text, for example.) Pay toilet is a useful place to document the implications of charging for the use of facilities. The main article, which is longer, should remain public toilet, and it is appropriate that more time is put into it. But the story of why certain places had or have toilets that cost money is an important one as well, with aspects of history, geography, sociology, and politics, see for example its summary of the Committee to End Pay Toilets in America. Pay toilet could certainly be improved, particularly with regard to sources, but it's not bad as it stands. I wouldn't want any of the information that it contains to be lost to the encyclopedia. On the other hand, if the articles were merged, pay toilet would be subsumed, and public toilet would be left with one section much larger than the rest, giving a lopsided read.

All of this is slightly defensive. EvMsmile, you proposed the merge, so it is up to you to explain why, within the guidelines. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

My argument is that "pay toilets" is simly a subset of "public toilets". In common language, the term "pay toilet" is hardly ever used (for me it is totally uncommon, but I gather it is a term used widely in the US?)! In Germany, most public toilets come with a fee attached to them - even those in department stores. Usually there is an attendant and one is supposed to leave a "tip" on a plate. At highways, it is more the coin-operated system, i.e. less of a voluntary system. You see that the article on pay toilets is only of a "start" quality so far. If you wanted to build up the history section or the section on examples you would have enormous overlap with the sections about public toilets. Same goes for pictures. Unless you really want to focus it on the coin-operated variety but again the only difference is how to get inside - once you are inside of the building/cubicle, everything is the same. You see also from the low activity levels for the article "pay toilet" that it is not really warranted to be a stand-alone article in my view. EvMsmile (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that pay toilet is a subset of public toilet, but that is not a good argument. Many (most?) articles are about something that could be seen as a subset of something else. The article house does not stop us having one on kitchen and bedroom and indeed toilet (room); the article school summarises or makes reference to primary school, secondary school, Christian school, and so on.

Your second argument is that the term "pay toilet" is uncommon. We had a similar discussion about Toilet (room) vs bathroom, and there we agreed that descriptive clarity was more important than how many people used each term. The policy on article titles does not apply directly to a merge proposal, but it is still illuminating: "The title may simply be the name (or a name) of the subject of the article, or it may be a description of the topic." "Pay toilet" seems to me a clear description of what the article is about. Yes, the term is used more in American English than elsewhere, but that is not the point. And it is not restricted to the USA; the British Toilet Association gives this as a recent headline: "First Pay Toilet".

The information on Germany is interesting, but of limited relevance in deciding the shape of the encyclopedia.

Fourthly, you say that pay toilet is currently only at "start" level. True, but that is an argument for improving it, and I would see any such improvement focussing on the "pay" rather than the "toilet", or other design features (e.g. types of handwashing equipment). For example, in 2010 Time magazine named the pay toilet as one of The 50 Worst Inventions - specifically the payment aspect, not the provision of public hygiene facilities. You say "the only difference [between the articles] is how to get inside" - precisely so, and given that it is an important difference, it deserves an article of its own. Compare for example with state school and private school; what a difference payment makes!

Your final argument is that pay toilet has a low level of activity, i.e. not many editors involved. Could you point me to the policy that says this is a rationale for merging an article?

In short, in considering your case for a merger, I still oppose it. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, I see my arguments have not convinced you, and fair enough - I don't have a strong "policy case". However, I think the reason why nobody has built up the article of pay toilet further in recent times is because as soon as one starts, one might as well add the same information to public toilet, e.g. when you look at the history part it is impossible to separate the two as public toilets have always been sometimes for free, sometimes not. Anyway, if I spend time then I will spend it on public toilet, not on pay toilet. - Let's hear if anyone else has an opinion about this? EvMsmile (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

After doing some more work on the article, I think I have figured out what my main issues were: a) there was not clear enough linking from the main article to the sub-article (I have improved that now). b) the article made it seem like free public toilets are the norm, and when you have to pay it is not a "public toilet" anymore but a "pay toilet". For this reason I have now added the globalize tag: it seems to me that in Anglosaxon countries public toilets are more likely to be free of charge compared to other countries. E.g. in Australia they have wonderful public toilets which are pretty much all free of charge. In Europe though, you usually have to pay (that's also why I gave that example from Germany); the situation in developing countries is different again, as far as I know they would often have attendants there (and if they don't then they are usually filthy). We should add some more aspects about public toilets in countries other than US and UK, then we can remove the globalize tag again. E.g. taking some of the examples from the pay toilet article across to the public toilet article would help. EvMsmile (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I agree that the main focus should be here, on public toilet. You've been bold, which is encouraged of course, but I may not have time to respond to your changes today. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 14:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

No consensus to merge the articles, so I will remove the templates. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Merge privatization article to here

I propose to merge the article on privatization of public toilets to here as there is not enough content to warrant a separate article. If one day in future, the section became very large, then it could be split off into a separate article again. For now, I think it should be re-integrated into here. EvMsmile (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. Privatization of public toilets has four separate references, and, as the privatisation in the real world grows, so will the article. The subject matter should be summarised in a couple of sentences for inclusion in public toilet. NB a privatised toilet does not mean that the user pays, necessarily, and it is a helpful clarification to keep articles separate. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 14:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Just because it has four separate references why is that an argument? Looking at the history of that article, it's hung around for a long time without much progress. I think it was premature to create a separate article unless someone had plans to build it up. I would say first include the topic in the main article (public toilets) and when/if it grows then split it off at a later stage. That's how I've done it with other articles, e.g. starting with malnutrition and then later malnutrition in children. EvMsmile (talk) 14:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Beginning a subject as a section of an existing article, expanding it gradually, and hiving it off into its own article when it has matured, is an excellent strategy. However, here we are dealing with an article that already exists; merging it now, and then later un-merging it, seems an unnecessary complication. Of the four reasons for possible mergers (linked again), the only one that seems relevant here is number 3:

Text: If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. For example, parents or children of a celebrity who are otherwise unremarkable are generally covered in a section of the article on the celebrity (and can be merged there).

Here I suppose it depends on what one means by "very short". Certainly, Privatization of public toilets is short, but I'd say not very short: I've seen plenty of shorter stubs stay, because they serve a useful function. And so does this. The subject concerns how a public good passes into for-profit hands, which is a trend increasingly visible around the world. It is far more significant than the unremarkable relatives of a celebrity. This example of privatization is well-served by having its own article, which of course can be summarised in public toilet. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Closing, given that the discussion is stale and without consensus to merge. Klbrain (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Being bold

As User:EvMsmile made dozens of changes a few days ago (WP:BEBOLD), I thought I'd have a good look as well. Most I agree with, but a few I'll challenge here:

1. If well-sourced material is cut as unsuitable to the article, it should not be lost to the encyclopedia. See our policy on content removal. One sourced sentence was removed, but I can't see that it has been placed anywhere else.

2. An item was removed from "See also" with no explanation. Our policy says "The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." I contend that a significant novel whose title is a variant of the phrase "public toilet" fits the bill.

3. A quote hidden within a citation was removed as "too much detail", when arguably this is exactly what the encyclopedia should be providing: a smooth read on the surface, and easily accessible sources tucked away underneath.

4. A sentence giving useful historical perspective (circa 1995 to now) and cited to a Vice Media publication was removed as an "unsuitable reference". Why?

5. Two very well-referenced sentences explaining the meaning and context of "cottaging" were removed. The image of the cottage-like toilet block was removed "not needed here as it appears in the main article about cottaging" - which seems more of an argument to include the picture, as a visible link.

6. I note the removal of links internal to the article, i.e. pointing from one section to another, again with no explanation. This seems doubly odd, given that the new section, on "Purpose", includes such pointers, e.g. "see below sections on drugs and sexual activities".

One area of weakness that remains is "External links". I suspect that most of them don't satisfy WP:EL. One that was removed was an essay by an anthropologist, which I will try to work into the article itself. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I've replied to your points 5, 3 and 4 below in a new section.

About Point 1: This sentence "One term now fallen into disuse is "longhouse", from Whittington's Longhouse, set up in fifteenth century London." refers to a specific town and a specific time (15th century London) and is therefore not of general relevance. Actually, it is referring to an alternative term for toilet, not something historical about public toilets. If you think it's important, how about moving it to here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet#Names ?

About Point 2: I am fairly sure there are hundreds of novels that have something about public toilets in the title. What makes this one so special that it needs to be given a spot in see also??

About Point 6: I thought internal links in articles were not the norm; usually articles that are of GA or FA or A class don't have them or do they? Am I mistaken? If yes, then sure we can put them back in.

About the external links, I will start a separate section on this, see below. EvMsmile (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

How much content on cottaging do we need here given that there is a separate article for it

Thanks, User:Carbon Caryatid for your feedback above. I've started a new heading to discuss your points 5, 3, 4 - which all refer to the same issue:

Thanks for your feedback. I will respond to most of it just now but just quickly about Point 5. That part about sex in public toilets was far too dominant, given that there is a separate article for it and given that it is no longer that common anyhow (as the article says it was before gay people had the chance to be elsewhere). So I really don't see a need to go into detail here and to even include a pointless picture of a public toilet looking like a cottage (when most public toilets nowadays don't look like cottages)! Anyone interested in the topic can read the summary sentences about the topic and then head across to the other article if they want. I actually feel like someone got carried away with the topic of sex in public toilets and gave it undue weight in this article. That's the reason why I have shortened that section, including removal of that image. EvMsmile (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

The feedback I gave above also applies to Point 3. We don't need this long quote dominating the references section when the same quote can be found in the separate article on cottaging. To me it feels like a bit of an obsession with something to do with sex - which I am come across on more than one occasion on Wikipedia (although more usually in terms of vandalism).EvMsmile (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Your point 4 again refers to the cottaging article; this content can be found in the cottaging article. As I said above, we only need a summary here but not a repeat of that other article. In my opinion we don't even need the summary. It may be sufficient to put it in "see also" and remove the cottaging stuff completely. EvMsmile (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Improving the external links

Thanks, User:Carbon Caryatid - I agree the external links are debatable. Which ones in particular do you think need to be removed or added and why? I think those about Australia could stay - Australia is a world leader in providing excellent public toilets; the one to PHLUSH is in my opinion also OK as they are a leader on this topic in the U.S. as far as I know. EvMsmile (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Planned improvements on the occasion of World Water Day March 2017

I am part of a little team of people working in an edit-a-thon right now, see here. We're going to put here some planned improvements. Bear with us as some of us are beginners on Wikipedia but all keen to improve this! EMsmile (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Re-thinking Public Toilet

Hi, I'm working on this article as part of the SuSanA Wikipedia Edit-a-thon for World Water Day, 2017. I welcome your suggestions.

PROGRESS REPORT:

• Very slow.
• Invite feedback on lead below
• Need help or to read up on external references and pdfs.
• Sections on Types, Purpose, and Health aspects done.
• Design needs thought and amplification. Leaving for later.
• Fixtures is passable.

NEXT Need key distinctions or a typology or public toilets.

Basic terminology: Cover standard names used internationally and in specific countries. Public toilet, toilet block, washroom, restroom, etc.(Then informal names (not slang): bathroom, the facilities, W.C. etc)

Architecture and layout: May be free standing or within buildings. May be smaller single-occupancy rooms or larger rooms with multiple stalls or urinals. May include larger rooms or stalls to accommodate wheelchair users. These accessible toilets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessible_toilet are equipped with safety features such as grab bars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grab_bar and other features proposed by Universal Design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_design or mandated by law such as the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Act_of_1990. Single-occupancy toilets may be called by various names: unisex, gender-neutral, all-gender, or family. Inclusive facilities may be designated all-user to indicate availability to all: disabled people with personal attendants, parents with opposite sex children, Gender-nonconforming individuals at risk of harassment in men's or women's restrooms. (BTW Here's a poor article with a wonderful neutral title https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sex_segregation_in_public_restrooms#Extremely_biased Could add origin of women's rooms or some history from here http://www.phlush.org/2016/08/31/social-inclusion-toilet-rights-and-legal-protection-for-transgender-americans/)

Furnishings: Toilets for sitters and squatters.Amenities for washers and wipers (Need links esp to photos) Furnishings for hand washing, hand drying, MHM,grooming, etc.

Attended and non-attended: Attendants in west have died out and now are coming back. Need good references to experiences in rest of the world. See Toolkit for more especially San Francisco.

Community Toilet Scheme Started in Richmond borough, community toilet schemes are now found throughout urban Great Britain. [Link] http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120919132719/www.communities.gov.uk/publications/localgovernment/guidancetoiletschemes Santa Barbara, California [LINK] and is under consideration by the Washington DC District Council (LINK to March 2017 DC ordinance as soon as official)

Cryacrem (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Cryacrem I am a bit confused now. Some of these changes you have already made, right? Or not? Please clarify what you would like to change, or very gently make the changes in the article, saving often, so we can follow what you are doing and how. Thanks. EMsmile (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed changes to lead

CRITIQUE REQUEST: I wouldn't mind a critique of my proposed lead. You see, people need to grasp that public toilets include facilities that serve people without toilets in their homes. For the "worldwide view" (and for current project goals) this distinction, new terminology seems important. And we need a good example of a public toilet in an informal peri urban settlement (slum, katchi abadi, favela, etc) that serves people who do not have toilets in their homes. And also facilities that serve people without homes, including in western cities. Proposed text below.

A public toilet is a room or small building containing one or more toilets (and possibly also urinals) that serves the public.

Strictly speaking, a public toilet is built and maintained by a town, city, state, provincial, or nations government to serve the needs of residents and visitors. However, the term also refers to a facility provided by a retail business for their customers or in a private workplace to serve workers. Another type of public toilet is one that operates as an independent business to serve primarily local residents without adequate sanitation in their homes or to serve those away from home. A public-private arrangement where local governments pay businesses to open their facilities to the general public during business hours is common in the United Kingdom, where it is known as a Community Toilet Scheme.

A public toilet may be a room in a building or free standing structure. It may use use any of various types of toilet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet%7CToilet fixtures, including [[1]]. They may use [[2]] or [[3]] technologies for collection, transport and treatment of urine and [[4]]. An attendant my be employed on site or not. Free standing public toilets may [automatically] or not.

Architectural layout and furnishings within may vary to serve those who sit, squat, wipe and/or wash, disabled or gender nonconforming individuals, and people with personal attendants. Pay toilets are common in some places [5] and outlawed in others https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_to_End_Pay_Toilets_in_America.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryacrem (talk • contribs) 15:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC) 

Insert content about Separation by sex to other article

User:Sslucic: you have added more content to the section "Separation by sex" but I would move that also to the existing main article on this topic (Sex segregation in public restrooms) rather than making the article on public toilets too big. That's what the separate article is for. EMsmile (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I've made that change now. I have left short sections but moved major content about transgender issues and unisex toilets to the articles on Sex segregation in public restrooms and unisex public toilet. This helps to avoid dublication and make this article here clearer. I also propose that the two articles (Sex segregation in public restrooms and Unisex public toilet) should be merged as they really talk about the same thing, just from two different angles. I would say the title of the merged article should be Unisex public toilet. EMsmile (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Public toilet. 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/20091012122653/http://www.advocate.com/Print_Issue/Features/Cruise_Control/ to http://www.advocate.com/Print_Issue/Features/Cruise_Control

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 20:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 3 July 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved  — Amakuru (talk) 10:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

---

Public toilet → public lavatory – To me and lots of people, a public toilet is a fixture that exists in public, not the room as a whole. Fish567 (talk) 17:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: It seems like a WP:ENGVAR issue. My impression is that the use of "toilet" to refer to an entire room or building is common in British English. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Lavatory" refers to a sink/washbasin is some varieties of English.[6] The current title is less ambiguous. —  AjaxSmack  22:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. No compelling evidence has been presented to change the title per WP:ENGVAR, as this appears to be the case. The national variety of English used by one editor and an unspecified "lots of people" (without disclosing whether they come from just one country or multiple nations) is an insufficient reason. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• To me in England, "lavatory" always means where people go to pee or to poo, NOT a sink or a washbasin; never mind its etymology. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: this page has changed name numerous times in the past, this is pointless. A fair proportion of the English-speakers of the world would recognise this term, keep it and redirect other terms to it. And stop having the same discussion over and over again. JMWt (talk) 14:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: I am not an English native speaker but the term "lavatory" seems very old-fashioned to me and it would be unclear to me what it is. Public toilet is clear. EMsmile (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose on WP:ENGVAR grounds. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Public toilets, customers, and employees

I know this language area is heavily populated with euphemisms, leading to things often meaning the opposite of what the words literally mean, but the bit in the lead telling me that "A public toilet is...available for use by the general public, or by customers or employees of a business" is quite untrue in my country, Australia. Many businesses have signs up pointing out that their toilets are only available to customers or staff, and are NOT public toilets, i.e. a public toilet is one for use by the general public. This seems very logical to me. Is the situation different elsewhere? HiLo48 (talk) 00:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I remember this discussion earlier. Certainly in many countries restaurants etc may restrict the use of their facilities to their customers. The question is, what to call the toilet facilities in offices etc? So this wording is supposed to cover both cases: ones open to the general public, and ones provided to restricted groups. I believe I found a sanitation industry source which referred to them collectively as "out-of-home toilets", but that term never caught on. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 13:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

In Australia we don't have an issue with what to call the toilets in businesses and restaurants. They are often just "the toilets". Everyone expects businesses to have toilets for employees, logically also called staff toilets, and restaurants to have toilets for customers, maybe called customer toilets. They are not public toilets. I'm interested in where such toilets ARE known as public toilets. And then I'll work on how to improve the wording in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

the term "public" is meant to mean here "out of home", like Carbon Caryatid said. I agree that it could be slightly misleading and if you have better wording, please go ahead and modify, HiLo48. I think it would not make sense to have a separate Wikipedia entry for "office & restaurant toilets", so this article called "public toilets" covers all of them. They are all public in the sense that you are sharing the toilets with more than just your immediate family members. If it could be made clearer in the lead or in the section on "alternative names" (lets rename that to "terminology"?), please go ahead. - If you are from Australia I have to tell you that the public toilets in Australia are the best and most frequent in the world! I currently also live in Australia. There might be some publications which we should cite that have come out of Australian local government, e.g. this one here. EMsmile (talk) 02:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

...and in prisons?

Today I removed some text describing toilets used by prisoners as public toilets. There was no doubt in my mind at the time that this claim made no sense (due to language usage in my country, Australia). I was reverted with the Edit summary "they are not in private residences so are public toilets". Nah. I can cope with the result of the above discussion, just, but there is no way I can accept that toilets in prisons are public toilets. The "public" can't get near them, and probably wouldn't want to. Maybe language usage differs, but we cannot have that of one part the world being the only one deemed to be right in this article. HiLo48 (talk) 05:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

See the section below "Privacy in prison toilets", I started the discussion there before your post appeared .2A02:2F01:5CFF:FFFF:0:0:51C4:FEE9 (talk) 05:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

No you didn't. You may have begun writing it, but obviously my post appeared before you had finished it. Another difference in language use? HiLo48 (talk) 05:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Privacy in prison toilets

User HiLo48 (talk) removed the text "in this respect, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in Szafrański v. Poland (2015) that the forcing of prisoners to use the toilet without adequate privacy amounts to a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. [45]" from the section "Privacy" on the grounds that "toilets for prisoners would not be described as public toilets". I reverted back, as I think consensus should be reached first.

The difference between public and private toilet is being discussed here on talk in the section above "Public toilets, customers, and employees", and HiLo48 (talk) has an opinion that he promotes, but is not supported by other users. So I don't think he can remove text from the article regarding this issue without WP:CONSENSUS.

Furthermore, the paragraph that he removed is, i think, very important: it gives information about a European Court of Human Rights case, affecting the countries under its jurisdiction (the 47 countries of the Council of Europe) so it has to be in this article. 2A02:2F01:5CFF:FFFF:0:0:51C4:FEE9 (talk) 05:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Was there any chance you could have read what I wrote above before you posted this? Prisons are simply not public places. Their toilets therefore cannot be public toilets. My comments have nothing to do with the European Court of Human Rights case. I'm going to say that illogical language, even if it's what you're used to using, doesn't belong in Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 05:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

To restrict this article to toilets that are open to any member of the general public would make the article scope very narrow in my view. "Public toilets", for the purpose of this article, should include both those open to the general public, and the ones provided to restricted groups of people. If the latter are not addressed here, then where will they be: in another article that we must create? I think this article should only exclude toilets in private homes.2A02:2F01:5CFF:FFFF:0:0:51C4:FEE9 (talk) 05:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, in the (perhaps more sophisticated) version of English used in Australia, we have words for more than two types. Have you actually read my comments in that thread? Again though, how can toilets in a very closed place, prisons, logically be described as public? HiLo48 (talk) 05:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

They are public toilets because they are not in a private home intended to be used only by one person (and their family and close friends invited by choice in their private home) but are collectively used by members of a community, even if that community is not the general public. Just because there are restrictions on who can use a toilet doesn't mean it can't be called a public toilet. 2A02:2F01:5CFF:FFFF:0:0:51C4:FEE9 (talk) 06:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

It does in my version of English. Can you accept that there might be different versions of the language around the world, and some may be more logical than yours? HiLo48 (talk) 06:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Did some Googling for "public toilet meaning". Unfortunately, all the efforts people go in using euphemisms to avoid mentioning the real thing get in the way a lot. But I found:

"A public toilet is a room or small building containing one or more toilets and possibly also urinals which is available for use by the general public, or in a broader meaning of "public", by customers of other services."[7]
Note the "or" after the comma, with my usage first.

"A toilet that is available to the public."[8] I submit that prisoners aren't exactly members of the public.

I still say that we are obviously facing a problem of different meanings in different versions of English. I wish people were more willing to talk about just going to the toilet so I could pin this down a bit better. HiLo48 (talk) 07:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Making it clearer what public toilets are

To help with the discussion about prisons above, and in line with my comment from 23 July 2018 above, I have now edited the lead and re-arranged things a bit to make it clearer that this article is about all toilets that are NOT owned by a household. This can include toilets at businesses, restaurants but also schools and prisons. I have also created a new heading called "Toilets in particular locations" where the relevant information about toilets in schools or prisons can go. There is no need to discuss use of the term "public toilets" in different varieties of English. We just need to decide if this Wikipedia article should cover them all or not. I think the answer is yes, it should be a broad article which can - if needed - branch off into sub-articles (e.g. if we ever think we need a separate article on toilets in prisons then it can be linked to from this main article. I hope you like the changes that I made. EMsmile (talk) 03:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I've added a section on cleaning, maintenance and management

I've added a section on cleaning, maintenance and management and I'd like to build it up more over time. This is crucial for public toilets to remain pleasant. I got the idea after coming across the very short article on restroom attendant. EMsmile (talk) 02:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Add information about use of urinals in Muslim countries?

I had put the below on the talk page of urinal several years ago. In the interest of making this article more global, I think we need to add a statement that urinals are not (or less) common in public toilets in Muslim countries. It might be hard to find a reference for this though? This is copied from the talk page of urinal from 2015: I think we should add something about where (public) urinals are common. As far as I know, urinals are not used much in Muslim countries as many Muslims practice cleaning with water after urination and they also don't like the idea that urine could splash back onto them. I don't have a source to cite ready at hand but if someone else knows more about it, can you add it? We could say something along the lines that urinals are common in countries in Europe, the US, Canada, Japan, India (??) etc but not common in the Middle East, Northern Africa, i.e. Muslim countries (??) EvM-Susana (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that there should be more coverage of this; sorry that I don't have much expertise on that topic. Look at the article on Bidets and related topics, where there is some coverage of customs in Muslim traditions. Reify-tech (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I have started a little survey about this topic here on a discussion forum. A picture is emerging that they are not common in Muslim countries but I am still trying to find a good, reliable reference for this. EvM-Susana (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC) EMsmile (talk) 03:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Add more information about legislation

Just a reminder that if someone has time, I think we need to beef up the section about legislation a bit. I have just wikilinked to an article that was created in 2016 about employees' rights. EMsmile (talk) 03:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Violent crime inside public toilets

Violent crime inside public toilets can be a problem in areas where the rate of such crimes in general is very high. Would it still be an issue if the bystanders heard a bullying incident in the opposite gender bathroom? 208.59.132.152 (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Power

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 23 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): M4M3M2M1 (article contribs).

Removed a text block about Covid-19

I've removed this textblock as I felt that if we want to include information about this we would need more reliable sources as per WP:MEDRS:

Health risks from spreading disease

Public toilets may cause people to be infected with some diseases, particularly if hygiene is lacking. In 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic, it become clear that COVID-19 spreads not only through respiratory droplets but through aerosol particles which remain suspended for much longer. There are multiple touch points in public toilets – stall door locks, flush handles, and faucets. The NGO PHLUSH has published guidelines on the safe reopening of public toilets. This includes for example: "Place hand-hygiene stations at the entrance restrooms and ask users to clean hands before entering to avoid surface contamination." The guide also recommends removing forced air hand dryers that can spread viruses and bacteria into the room. EMsmile (talk) 08:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

References

EMsmile (talk) 08:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)