Talk:Hot tub

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Would a hot tub be able to function in space? Would centrifugal force be enough or would the lessened gravity be a problem with the bubbles? 67.53.75.42 17:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

A hot tub would not function in a zero-G environment. But as you know, artificial gravity caused by acceleration (including so-called centrifugal force) is indistinguishable from real gravity, so a hot tub on a 2001-like centrifuge (and in normal atmospheric pressure) would work fine. Well, so long as the diameter of the centrifuge were large enough to not noticeably curve the surface of the water; that is, the surface of the water would conform to the local curvature of the centrifuge so if the centrifuge curved "up" several inches in the width of the hot tub, so would the water!

HAL, more bubbles, please!

Atlant 18:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 bathtubs 2 introductory paragraph 3 Media attention 4 Heights 5 Generic Brands 6 External links to the hot tub rotomoulding site (and more generally, corporate sites)

[edit] bathtubs

I don't think a bathtub should be included in the definition of a hot tub. I think what defines a hot tub is that it may be kept hot for an extended period of time, through many uses.

A home bathtub, even if it has a jet, is not a hot tub because it lacks both sanitizing capability, as well as heating ability. Building codes have separate regulations for bath tubs with jets (hydrotherapy), and pool/spa building requirements. Pro crast in a tor 19:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] introductory paragraph

I removed the references to reading and meditation, as I think they fall under the term "relaxation". The first paragraph should be short and to the point, and having 6 usage entries seems too long. Pro crast in a tor 19:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Media attention

Not sure of the template, but this article was referenced in the Times (of London) today. Skittle 10:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You may want to put a link at Wikipedia:Press coverage.

Atlant 13:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

For anyone interested, the article is at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,20910-2353078.html Pro crast in a tor 04:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! As the author of that lede sentence, I guess I'm now sort of hemi-demi-semi-famous, ehh? ;-)

Atlant 17:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, it's collaborative editing, as I know I touched that line, too. :) It's certainly a good sign that the page is worth citing. Nice job, everyone! Pro crast in a tor 18:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

"Barkeep, drinks all around!" ;-)

Atlant 19:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heights

"They are almost always shallower than wooden tubs, being less than 32" high so they will fit through a standard United States doorway."

This is no longer true; most current models are 36", 38", or even deeper. Tom G, Communications Officer, Arctic Spas.

Thanks Tom G, duly noted in the article. Pro crast in a tor 16:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Generic Brands

I am unable to document the use of arctic spa as a generic brand in the UK, though I have found jacuzzi. I have removed that part until I can cite a reference. It was suggested to me that the other brand names be removed as well. ArcticSpasCO 22:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I removed the reference to Jacuzzi. Seems a bit outdated now, rather like how people talk about the copy machine rather than the Xerox machine nowadays. Also, ArcticSpasCO, your most recent edit to this article was marked "minor", but it was not a minor edit. Please review the wikipedia policy on minor editing at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Minor_edit , it should only be used for superficial things like punctuation, spelling, and the like. Thanks! Pro crast in a tor 03:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Both Jacuzzi and Whirlpool are still there!? Can't figure out how to see in the history just what I edited, but I've checked the minor edit policy and will take note of that for the future.Greybeard2ca 20:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Greybeard2ca, there was a separate mention about Jacuzzi in the article. To view the change, go to the main article, click on the "history" tab, then compare the last two versions to see what change I made. Best, Pro crast in a tor 16:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links to the hot tub rotomoulding site (and more generally, corporate sites)

Hi [User:81.77.109.247|81.77.109.247], there's no requirement for supporting evidence that rotomoulding is, in fact, used in the manufacturing of hot tubs as this is not a contentious issue (see WP:REF), so there's no need for the reference. Though the site is interesting, it is too much like an ad, with the most egregious sentence being "It is only then that the tub is worthy of a laser cut HotTubs2Buy plaque, wrapped in a protective plastic cover and delivered to the customer in perfect working order." Egads, that's marketing-speak, and has no place as a link from wikipedia.

If there is a similar page that discussed the equipment but didn't have the marketing speak, I'd be all for adding in the link. But, as the link is, I think that it should not be linked to. There's also an interesting link I found about acrylic vacuum forming of bathtubs, but it, too, was full of marketing speak, so I couldn't link to it, either. Pro crast in a tor 10:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Pro crast in a tor, forgive me if I am wrong but when you lift infomation from another website it should be sited as your source. I believe although this page contains marketing speak does add value to wikipedia users looking to further investigate the rotational molding process.

Hello [user:84.64.83.165|84.64.83.165], it's not a contentious issue that rotomolding is used for hot tubs, so a citation is not necessary: it's common knowledge. Just type in "rotomolded hot tub" into google, and you'll see a bunch. If the reader want to learn more about rotational molding, they can click on the rotational molding link, which is provided in the text. Again, the marketing speak aka ad of that article makes it unusable as a wikipedia reference: see wp:ref and wp:ads for more on this subject (sorry, I included broken reference before, now fixed)

Also, you can sign your name or IP address by placing four tildes ("~") at the end of your comment, it makes it easier to figure out whom is talking to whom. Thanks. Pro crast in a tor 21:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Procrast in a tor, the online artical at hot tubs 2 buy has now been edited to exclude marketing speak. Let me know if i have missed any. I do now believe that this merits an external link for anyone looking for further infomation on the construction specifically of rotational molded hot tubs.

Hi [User:84.66.164.45|84.66.164.45], the text is still not that great in my opinion. "Now that the hot tub is visually complete all that is left to do is install the heart, lungs and brain of the hot tub (Pump, Air Blower and Control panel). This is done by a electrical engineer and then tested toughly using state of the art computer testing equipment." Do you really use an EE to do product testing? That seems highly unlikely when you could have an EE set up the system, then pay someone minimum wage to operate the tester. "State of the art" is also marketing-speak, as it means nothing (just think of text written in the 60's using that term). "Thoroughly" is also misspelled (by no less than 3 letters, I might add), and there are a number of other misspellings, too. 5 clicks to read what could be a one-page article. Even with the most egregious marketing-speak removed, it still is not a high quality article, and I don't think it should be linked to.

We also have a conflict of interest, as the goal should not to make a page that's acceptable to wikipedia, and add it to boost your search rankings or sales, but instead, for wikipedia editors to find pages of interest and add it. See WP:COI for more about Wikipedia guidelines on conflict of interest. Personally, if I ran across your article in some fashion, I'd find it interesting, but I don't think it would be noteworthy to most hot tub readers. Combine this with it being a poorly written article, and I'm sure I wouldn't add it.

Anyone else have an opinion on this topic? Pro crast in a tor 11:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This is one of those topics where essentially all external links are just spam, and ought to be routinely deleted.

Atlant 14:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I guess I'm being a bit light where I should be heavy-handed, as it is pretty clearly spam. Pro crast in a tor 00:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like the page sprouted a "manufacturers" list, less unsightly than the above but still spam. I removed it: wikipedia is not a directory: WP:NOT#DIR, and the manufacturers list seems to fall under the "links normally to be avoided" list in WP:EL, as well as ads WP:ADS.