The text of the entry was: Did you know that installation of about 25,000 pail closets in 19th-century Manchester, England helped clear the city's drains and rivers of up to 3,000,000 gallons of waste?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sanitation, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sanitation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I have just created an article for privy midden, or should it be 'Midden closet'. Any thoughts/comments. I should say that I have done a pretty broad cleanup across many articles related to sanitation and toilets over the past 48 hours to bring more consistency to the articles and link them in a more logical way. The main notable omission in Wikipedia on this subject was the lack of an article on the midden system. I am not an expert in this field, but do have an interest in dry systems and their evolution. PeterEastern (talk) 22:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately you've added information to the lead which isn't contained within the body of the article, which makes a bit of a mess of things, especially as one of the citations you added doesn't fill me with confidence. It also isn't necessary to remove information from one article just because it exists in another, especially when that information is used to help explain why the pail closet came into existence. For these reasons, I have reverted your edits. Parrotof Doom 22:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Personally I think this article would be clearer without having such a long preamble about another method. It was also my understanding that large tracts of duplication was not considered desirable in Wikipedia but I am not going to argue with you on the point. PeterEastern (talk) 23:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
You may have a point and it may be preferable to chop it down slightly now that you've done the hard work in creating a new article, but it's late and I'm tired. By the way, you've missed the Bibliography section in midden closet, which renders the citations a little bit useless. If you need help please don't be afraid to ask. Parrotof Doom 23:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out - I have now added the correct note/reference structure. I am going to be exiting stage left from this area of wikipedia soon, but do feel free to develop the content as you see fit. I started out looking to more background to composting toilets and the old privy system and then got sucked into sorting a load more stuff out that I intended to, but I am pretty much done now. My remaining questions are about how connected the privies were to the middens - did one often flow into the other under gravity, or was a bucket often used to basically chuck stuff on a separate heap. Possibly you can enlighten us! Did the overflow from the mideens get into the sewers via regular street gutters in an unintended way or were they plumbed in. Also... I understand that cellars in Soho London were pretty much used as cesspits prior to the Broad Street cholera outbreak. It would be great to have a few more gory details about this stuff. PeterEastern (talk) 23:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I made several changes, step by step, with individual edit summaries, and it's all been reverted in one fell swoop. I don't see how uncovering hidden links (honeybucket), adding British and American variants (bucket/pail), adding composting toilet to "see also", etc, in any way harms the article. I want to create readable and informative articles. Please explain each change you object to. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 12:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Where does the article state - "Although the more advanced water closet was widespread in wealthy homes by the end of the nineteenth century" and "In the 21st century, it has made a sort of come-back in the form of the modern composting toilet and the production of humanure" - changes you made to the lead that don't appear to reflect the article's content? Parrotof Doom 20:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Parrot, thanks for your promptness and apologies for my delay; I've been away from Wikipedia for most of the week. With regard to the first example you give, I found the wording awkward on several counts and was attempting to rephrase to ameliorate it. With regard to the second, you are correct that there is no material in the body of the article about modern dry systems, but I had added a couple of items to the "See also" section. I am happy to put these two examples aside for the moment, because you are quite right that the lede should summarise the article, and it's the article itself that I'd like to focus on. Here are the sorts of changes I made and you reverted; let's see if we can come to agreement here.
I've no problem with that so feel free. I'm just old and cynical regarding Wikipedia, with so many articles to watch it's hard to keep track when many changes are made at the same time. I don't think humanure is appropriate for this article though, you should add it to nightsoil instead. I think you should probably only change the first linked instance of privy "The closet was a small outdoor privy which" as the others are contextually correct in their use. Parrotof Doom 20:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll re-add all the changes I made to which you don't object. Then I'll leave it a few days and see if I can offer any improvements. (The OED leads me to think I might be able to.) I do hope future changes can be considered individually and not mass reverted. All the best. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Support - Both terms seem to be rather specific for use in th UK only, and they are historical terms. Should a merged artile have a different overarching title though?EvMsmile (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. True, the terms are historic, but the types of toilet described still exist, e.g. in India. More importantly, the difference is significant: one is a hole in the ground, and was acknowledged to represent all that was wrong about urban (lack of) sanitation; the other is a container-based system, by which municipal planners took a deliberate step forward in public sanitation. Of Wikipedia's four reasons for mergers, the only one I think might be relevant is overlap, in in my view the articles are sufficiently distinctive, and about sufficiently distinct topics, that they do not overlap to any detrimental extent. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose They serve the same purpose but are most definitely not the same thing and as such should be kept separate. J3Mrs (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I claim no expertise on the minutiae of differentiation, but yes, it seems that a privy midden (an obsolete term) is closest in meaning to a pit latrine. I would interpret "privy" as private (OED "A room or small building set aside for people to urinate and defecate in") and "midden" as the pile that results, but I'm prepared to be corrected. I think the implication is that, in towns, privy middens were always disgusting and pestilential. Properly constructed pit latrines can be quite tolerable, and are more likely to be encountered in a rural setting nowadays. So - to head off any suggestion - I think those two terms also deserve separate articles, as currently exist. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)