Talk:Bath bomb

message: The first sentence seems a little POV and unencyclopedia "fun and exciting addition"? — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 04:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So remove it!! Well, i'll do so now... The Minister of War (Peace) 16:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dunno

message: *Is* a bath bomb an alternative medical treatment?  I thought it was a thing one got from Lush that turned one's bath water pretty colors?  Should it be an A.M. stub at all?  I also felt that the majority of the article, 'make your own bath bomb' was un-encyclopedic and belonged on a DIY site.  ParvatiBai 07:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I have been involved in the Alternative medicine project, and I just happened upon this article, and I kinda balked at seeing this added to that project. __meco (talk) 12:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative Medicine?

message: The revision notes by Qwyrxian led me to wonder about whether this, or many other subjects, are fit material for Wikipedia according to its rules on sourcing.  The people who know about the properties of bath bombs are those who make them and those who use them.  Those who use them are doing original research, which is not supposed to be the basis of Wikipedia sourcing.  Those who make them know a lot, but can always be said to be "commercial" (either because they're advertising their own product or their own how-to instructions) and hence "too self-serving".
I can think of only one other likely source for info for such a piece: trade journals and trade books.  Just seems Wikipedia's a waste if all it does is digest articles in those.
Another point for Citizendia: someone who is immersed (heh) in the field and absorbed the info, but may not remember any original references or be able to find any that are significant compared to hir own knowledge, is the best source for info on stuff like this.67.86.203.235 (talk) 02:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Notable topics are covered in books, trade journals, magazines, etc.  A lifestyle magazine that talked about how Bath Bombs were the hot trend of 1994 (or whatever) would be reliable.  An article in Martha Stewart's magazine talking about how to make them would be reliable.  Now, this product is widely enough available that it seems likely that the topic is notable and verifiable, even though we don't currently have any references (which is why I didn't nominate it for deletion).  You may be confused about original research, however--if you had a reliable site or magazine article that talked about how to use, make, or choose bath bombs, those would be notable.  Blogs probably wouldn't be, but there may be some online sites that would; we'd have to examine them on an individual basis.  As for Citizendia, you're certainly welcome to use their service rather than ours; I've never tried it, but to each xyr own.  Qwyrxian (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unpediable? 

message: This diff introduced some new information to the article, but I decided to remove it because it wasn't sourced. Additionally, I'm not sure how correct the information was: bath bombs make my dry skin drier than the Atacama, not moisturise it. I've informed the editor who added the information and have written this here so any discussion can be in the right place. Brammers (talk/c) 10:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undone edit 

message: A note on the history would be good. I read somewhere that they were invented in 1989. Lush may have been the first shop to stock them. Equinox ◑ 18:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Removing the claim that essential oils react with sodium hydroxide to produce soap.  The given chemical equation is correct, but the compound represented, RCO2CH2CH(O2CR′)CH2CO2R is actually the chemical structure for a triglyceride https://chem.libretexts.org/Core/Biological_Chemistry/Lipids/Glycerides/Triglycerides.  Essential oils are volatile aromatic compounds and have very different chemical structures than triglycerides. Zuzarte M., Salgueiro L. (2015) Essential Oils Chemistry. In: de Sousa D. (eds) Bioactive Essential Oils and Cancer. Springer, Cham    TSFrey (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect chemical composition of essential oils 

message: 1. Replace opening paragraph with - 
A bath bomb is a consumer product used during bathing. It was invented and patented in 1989 by Mo Constantine, a co-founder of Lush Cosmetics.
It is a compacted mixture of wet and dry ingredients moulded into any of several shapes and then dried. Bath water effervesces at the surface of a bath bomb immersed within it, with attendant dispersion of such ingredients as  essential oil, moisturiser, scent, or colorant.
2. Add the following to history - 
The sharing of videos and pictures on social media of multi layered bath bombs, is often referred to as "bath art".
In recent years, the bath bomb has led to other trends. Bathscaping is seen as decorating a bathtub, both before and during bathing.
3. Remove “patent” subheading, its seems unnecessary? Content can remain under history, but no need for the heading.
RuanaLush (talk) 11:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: . Heartmusic678 (talk) 13:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Request 

message: Universaromes is a major player in bath bombs worldwide.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inforbain (talk • contribs) 13:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It's really not though, is it? I've moved this into its own section and undone your unreferenced addition to the article. Brammers (talk/c) 14:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment from Inforbrain

message: You know what, I've had a check against the content assessment scale, and I think this is actually Start class rather than a stub:
:The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas. The article has one or more of the following:
:*A useful picture or graphic  A range of bath bombs in a shop, and one in a bath.
:*Multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic  appropriate amount of wikilinks
:*A subheading that fully treats an element of the topic  chemistry
:*Multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article  four different aspects
So I've made the decision to bump it up to Start class. Now it can be a permastart article rather than a permastub. Brammers (talk/c) 14:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Regrading to Start class