Talk:Swimming pool/Archive 1

Archive 1

Seawater swimming pools

we should mention seawater swimming pools too -- Tarquin —Preceding undated comment added 17:06, 13 May 2003 (UTC).

- that's the idea of a Wiki. If you think the info should be in there, then add it. Other people can polish it later if they think it can be improved.But start with what you want to add. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.168.63.126 (talk) 13:24, 22 September 2004 (UTC)

Notice about competition swimming pools

In the article, near the end, there is a claim: "Competition pools have to be indoors to comply with the regulations regarding temperature, lighting and to protect the needed Automatic Officiating Equipment."

The 2004 Athens games had an outdoor pool for the competition, no?

Just wondering about the validity of this statement...

Athens had both indoor and outdoor pools, as well as a dedicated diving pool. I couldn't find any rule on FINA's web site that required a pool to be indoors, as long as it met various standards for lighting, temperature, &c. I'm going to remove this statement unless we find a governing body that requires indoor pools, and then it can be put back with qualification (e.g., "pools for underwater tennis competition must be indoors"). —Michael Shields 19:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I suspect the use of outdoor pools is allowed provided the other criteria are met (temperature, illumination etc.). There is probably some requirement to avoid wind and rain above the waters surface (since both will affect performance and water temperature)195.92.168.167 13:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

History?

Anyone know anything about the history of swimming pools? I'm sure they go back as far as man has been building things... -- BD2412 ^talk 01:56, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)

Well, the YMCA claims to have invented them. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 06:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Saltwater pool questions

Hi, never heard of a salt water pool till this weekend, when I saw one. My kids really liked it because it was heated and it didn't hurt their eyes. Seemed really nice. When I heard "salt water" I thought, "Ocean Water". NOT. It is swimming in saline solution. Why aren't more pools like this? What is the cost difference?

Well most salt water pools are actually filled with ocean water, and located by the beach. These kinds of salt water pools are usually refilled every night with fresh ocean water. And the cost difference is much more expensive then fresh water, and usually not found in private homes. The saline is much more expensive. Mac Domhnaill 04:49, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Salt water pools are really just the same type of swimming pool as any other. The difference lies within the disinfection system itself. The main concern here is cost as with all pools. Public pools do not have any considerable budgets to work with, and the same holds true for other public pools. This system can be VERY expensive up front compared to an erosion feeder which isn't much more technical than a bucket. However the cost can be made up in the chemical costs. You are essentially purchasing salt which is dirt cheap. What happens is essentially Salt (NaCl), sodium chloride, is added in large quantities to the pool. As the water goes through the filtration process, there is a generator pack- its like the size of a shoe box, and its job is to zap the "salt water" with electricity. This breaks the sodium from the chlorine and allows the chlorine to be available for disinfecting. Hope this helped you!

millionmice- the above is true, but incomplete. When the Cl- is converted to hyperchlorite you are left with an Na+ which is basic, and must be neutralised. So salt pools sanitise by converting acid and electricity into sodium hyperchlorite and chloric acid. Thus, it is cheaper to sanitise with liquid sodium hyperchlorite, and if you are using an automatic feeder, this is also more convenient than having to add salt everytime you lose water.

According to Swimming_pool#Pool_water_disinfection, it says:

Chlorine may be generated on site, such as in saltwater pools. This type of system generates chlorine by electrolysis of dissolved salt (NaCl) using an electrical cell in the pool plumbing, instead of manually dosing the pool with chlorinating chemicals. Chlorine generators avoid the need for constant handling of sanitizing chemicals, and can generate sanitizing power at a lower cost than the equivalent chemicals, but they have a large up-front cost for the apparatus and for the initial loading of the pool with salt. The salt content gives the pool water a brackish taste, but not as salty as seawater. pool water that splashes and evaporates, such as on a pool deck, leaves a salt residue. Being closer to isotonic salinity than fresh water, saltwater pools have an easier feel on the eyes, and a touch typically characterized as "silky", not unlike bath salts.

I always thought that chlorine wasn't involved in 'salt' swimming pools - and I have very sensetive, dry eyes.

Can anybody comment on how good or bad this water is on the eyes? How does it compare to normal chlorinated water and how does it compare to seawater?

Rfwoolf 04:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Early salt water pools had 2% saline in solution, the ocean (I recall) is 12% to 20% (12,000ppm to 20,000ppm) - depending where you are in the world. Most modern saline generators will work with .2 to .4ppm (20ppm to 40ppm) so you can't detect its presence. The only difference between "normal chlorinated water" and pools chlorinated by the production of chlorine in the pool is ... um ... none! The only thing I think is revelant is that for every gallon of chlorine created "in pool" you also get a gallon of Sodium Hydroxide (Caustic Soda) which has a pH of 14 - which must be reduced by the addition of hydrochloric acid or sodium bisulphate, or the chlorine will fail to disinfect the pool once the pH rises over 8.0 The pH of your eyes is 6.5 so swimming in water with that pH level should not have any noticable effect on your eyes, and although chlorine works best at that pH level, it is gaseous, and just quickly bubbles out of the pool. At a pH of 7.6 there is a balance of OCL and HOCl which is a compromise, but you get a 50% - 50% deal with the chlorine that is acceptable. Indentally, OCL is capable of pool water sterilisation, but only when the levels reach 25,000ppm - in other words, unrealistic!
[[Kiwilarry 05:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)]]

Just a note for all of you, and I'm not sure if this has been mentioned; the above user talked around it. Yes, chlorine is a constant in both salinated and non-salinated pools (bravo!). But it's not the chlorine which hurts your eyes (few people seem to know this). Guidelines for the care of commercial pools (apartments, swim clubs, other pools that see use by a large variety of people) call for very high chlorine levels; if I recall correctly at or above 10 ppm chlorine, and home pools should have 2-5 ppm. However, chlorinated water burns your eyes because the added chlorine lowers the pH of the water, NOT because of the chlorine "attacking" your eyes. Proper pool care calls for a pH slightly above 8; at this level, the water won't burn your eyes, regardless of the chlorine content (within reason, of course). Typically, a pool tech should "lightly" shock the pool every two weeks, which sends the chlorine levels well above 10ppm for a few days, until sunlight breaks the chlorine down. If done properly, you would never notice the increase in chlorine concentration; as the pH of the water drops due to the added chlorine, the tech will add about 25 lbs of sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) to bring the pH back up to a comfortable level.

Careful with this. Sodium Bicarbonate will effectively raise the pH, but with the side effect of raising the alkalinity level excessively. High alkalinity will lead to the possibility of cloudy water and scale formation. It is more effective to add soda ash after testing to the proper level, only adding sodium bicarbonate if the alkalinity also becomes low. Also be careful with the "chlorine lowers pH" theory. While slow dissolving chlorine tablets have a low pH level, Dichlor (pool shock) has a much more neutral pH, with Calcium Hypochlorite being even higher still. Also, the NSPA set a recommended range for pH as being between 7.2 and 7.8 (the pH of mucous membranes being 7.5). Finally, a side effect of salt water pool systems is the creation of a biproduct which is extremely caustic; in these pools you tend to have to continually lower the level of pH with muriatic acid or sodium bisulfate to avoid scale formation and cloudy water.

[[foxsable 07:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)]]

Why doesn't the pool tech keep the chlorine levels high all the time then? There are a variety of reasons, but chief among them is that high chlorine levels cause a variety of other problems not even related to your eyes and swimming comfort. High chlorine levels attack the liner of the pool, bleaching a vinyl liner or attacking the gunnite. High levels of chlorine are also hard on equipment. But more importantly, high levels of chlorine leach out tannins in plant debris (generally leaves and pinestraw), causing a brown scum to coat the liner, skimmers, and pump systems. This resembles algea, but is almost impossible to scrub off the liner. Chemical removal is possible through a wet acid bath, but frequently causes more problems than it solves with balance of chemicals in the pool water itself. In its advanced states, persistent high chlorine can cause tannins to cover everything in the pool with a thick brown scum that can be scraped off with a fingernail or hand, but refuses to be scrubbed of: liner, plastic around the skimmers, skimmers and skimmer baskets, pump pipes, the pump itself, the sand filter, etc. In this case, a total replacement of all the pool components is just about the only option.

Also, there was a recent article about a pool disembowlment at http://www.11alive.com/news/article_news.aspx?storyid=99647. This is a VERY important topic that needs to be mentioned in the wikipedia article. Single bottom drain pools, especially, are extremely dangerous when the bottom drain covers are missing; this allows a swimmer to seal around the drain with their bottom; after which the pump pressure sucks out the intestines through the anus. This is also a more common occurance than is generally supposed, and is not a random, freak accident. A drain cover should ALWAYS be replaced immediately when it comes off (after first turning off the pumps) and NO ONE should use to pool until it has been replaced; disembowlments like this are almost always immediately fatal; its a miracle the little girl in the above article survived. I'm not a wiki-user or enthusiast (from the writing end); but could someone add an appropriate passage in the "dangers of" article? It is much needed, thanks. -Former pool tech

Here's some more links about the issue - I want to incorporate these into the article at some point. This site talks about a case of disembowelment in 1993 and the subsequent legal case with John Edwards as the lead attorney, quoting from the Washington Monthly. There is also Guidelines for Entrapment Hazards: Making Pools and Spas Safer (PDF) from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. There is also Chuck Palahniuk's short story "Guts" which goes into this in nauseating detail and is probably the main reason why I don't feel like writing much in the article at the moment. For now I'll just add an external link about swimming pool safety. Graham87 08:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The girl in question, Abigail Taylor, later died from complications of her injuries. Her Wikipedia article was created shortly after her death. Graham87 08:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD discussion for Wading pools

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wading_pool  (aeropagitica)  22:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Pools heights

I came to this page looking for information about why a swimming pool has a shallow end and a deep end, but no luck. If anyone can help me it will be appreciated. Nzgabriel 09:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

For safe diving from the poolside (often done recreationally) or blocks (as used in most racing swimming) into the water a reasonable depth of water (the notices in most pools here seem to generally say no diving in areas shallower than 1.5m) is required. making the whole pool that depth would however exclude those who are too inexperianced/infirm/whatever to actually swim or float from being in the water at all (or at least from being in the water without flotation devices) and would also make the pool more expensive to build and run.

at least thats my guess as to the reasoning but i don't know for sure how and when the convention of doing it came about. Plugwash 02:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

As a residential pool builder, I would like to add my comment: The Meneely diving accident case in NY (1993 - 2001) caused a number of pool builders to abandon 8' 6" (2.75m) diving pools with diving boards - reverting to 6' 6" (1.92m) pools with no boards. The traditional pool I built from 1965 to 2002 was 3' 6" sloping down to 6' 6", but in 2002 I was asked why we did it this way, as the kids couldn't play ball games in the pool - someone was always disadvantaged by being in the "deep end". We were asked to form a deep central area 6' 6" with a slope from all sides and ends. This has proven to be very popular, and now 95% of our pools are constructed this way. We abandoned diving boards in 2002.
[[Kiwilarry 05:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)]]

DPD vs OTO

from the article "These reagents are typically OTO for chlorine and phenol red for pH.".

As far as I know DPD1 and DPD3 are the more common reagents used for free and total chlorine. Anyone know better?

--195.229.242.86 18:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

OTO Orthotoledene proved to cause cancerous tumors in trials on rats, and has been abandoned as a test reagent in most Western countries, being replaced (as noted above) by DPD
[[Kiwilarry 05:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)]]

May need to revert wording in 'Transmission of diseases' section

I noticed this paragraph in 'Transmission of diseases in swimming pools' section:

"Swimming pool and spas water can become contaminated by germs from swimmers or incoming water from unsafe water supplies. Contaminated recreational water can cause a variety of diseases such as AIDS and skin, ear, and upper respiratory infections, particularly if the swimmer's head is submerged."

I notice much earlier versions had 'diarrhoea' rather than 'AIDS', which seems much more likely to me. Didn't want to revert without checking here first. Mebirdo 13:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Searching for "aids" redirects here. Does anyone know how to change that? It's almost definetly a 4chan reference, btw.

thats correct you cant transmit HIV by water, only bodily fluid to bodily fluid.sailor iain 16:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

if you are swimming then inadvertedly your bodily fluids will become part of the water. it seems a little unscientific to say that water can not transfer AIDS since the human body is mostly water and then body fluids must be very much water (like 90% or so!?) 88.19.89.63 (talk) 09:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

For anyone who believes this garbage, see HIV and AIDS misconceptions#AIDS can be spread through casual contact with an HIV infected individual. Graham87 01:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Restructure and minor fixes

There is no mention of DPD in the article. DPD is only a fraction more expensive than OTO and yeilds far more accurate results. Some parts of the article are far too blocky and need to be broken up (Transmission of diseases in swimming pools for example). There are few citations of the source of the material. The chemical explanation is confusing and some sections are arguably inaccurate. Pool cleaners and other physical sanitation methods are not mentioned.

I'd like to do a full restructure with citations(but still keeping all the data currently here). Any objections?

No objections from me. I've mostly been watching this article for commercial links, and haven't read it properly in a while. Graham87 10:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Swimming Pools

I am assuming that the Romans and Greeks didn't use chlorinated water in their swimming pools. How did they keep them from getting all green and scummy? (DrZarkov 02:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC))

IIRC a lot of bigger more famous roman baths were actually built on hot springs which presumablly provided a continuous supply of hot clean water. I don't know about the smaller bathhouses but i suspect the water was just replaced enough by one means or another to stop it getting a chance to go scummy. Plugwash 02:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe they used copper pipes to pipe in the water. Copper is a natural bacteriostat. They also used copper, silver, and gold plates and cutlery, all of which display similar anti-bacterial properties. The use of solid silver cutlery has continued through the ages, and is popular today (amongst those who can afford it!)
[[Kiwilarry 05:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)]]

Private Pools and Other Pools

I believe there is some information in the above sections that needs to be edited. However, I'm not an authority on the subject, and not well informed on Wikipedia policy, so can anyone comment on the following?

Under the section Private Pools, it is mentioned that swimming pools in warmer areas are increasingly common in gardens. (Assuming that the British English definition of garden is being used here) since the locations mentioned are in the U.S., shouldn't the word 'yard' be used?

What is the reference for the fact that 'demountable' private pools are unstable and can collapse?

There are mentions of Home pools under 'Other Pools', shouldn't these be part of the Private Pools?

There is an implication that permanently built-in pools are all in-ground, and that above-ground pools are all disassemblable. In the area I live in (Upper Midwest U.S.), permanent above-ground pools seem to be much more common than in-ground pools in yards. The pools I'm talking about are non-permanent only in the sense that they don't last as long as the in-ground pools, and can be disassembled only in the sense that a deck or gazebo can be disassembled. The only pools I know that can be disassembled are the plastic ones that can be filled with air, but perhaps there are other kinds.

Regarding wading pools, is it really true that all wading pools must be filled and drained daily? Could it be possible that at least some public wading pools can have a filtration system, or is that mechanically impossible?

Finally, what is the significance of the fact that wading pools are painted blue in Canada? Is this a national law, or is it just a convention similar to the fact that many public pools in the U.S. are painted turquoise, aqua and other shades of blue and green?

Neilmsheldon 19:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Why no board shorts?

the article says that boardshorts are not allowed in france for hygenic reasons? what reasons are there not to wear boardshorts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.249.53.58 (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

one reason i can think of is that swim shorts blur the line between swimwear and leisure wear, i wonder if its really less about hygine and more about contamination with things like beach sand and seawater. Plugwash 02:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe its because your not suppose to wear clothes that have been used before swimming. Ie wearing board shorts all day long, maybe using the bus and then swimming, will increase the rise of contamination. I also read once a comment about costumes with clothing that has folds allows bacteria to grow and so thats why they prefer speedos and trunks.sailor iain 16:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

"Salt" swimming pools?

According to Swimming_pool#Pool_water_disinfection, it says:

Chlorine may be generated on site, such as in saltwater pools. This type of system generates chlorine by electrolysis of dissolved salt (NaCl) using an electrical cell in the pool plumbing, instead of manually dosing the pool with chlorinating chemicals. Chlorine generators avoid the need for constant handling of sanitizing chemicals, and can generate sanitizing power at a lower cost than the equivalent chemicals, but they have a large up-front cost for the apparatus and for the initial loading of the pool with salt. The salt content gives the pool water a brackish taste, but not as salty as seawater. pool water that splashes and evaporates, such as on a pool deck, leaves a salt residue. Being closer to isotonic salinity than fresh water, saltwater pools have an easier feel on the eyes, and a touch typically characterized as "silky", not unlike bath salts.

I always thought that chlorine wasn't involved in 'salt' swimming pools - and I have very sensetive, dry eyes.
Can anybody comment on how good or bad this water is on the eyes? How does it compare to normal chlorinated water and how does it compare to seawater?
Rfwoolf 04:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

For information on this, please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltwater_pool http://danspapers.com/paper/interior9.html In summary, saltwater pools do use salt to create chlorine which sanitizes the water. Interestingly though, some people report fewer allergic reactions to saltwater pools than to "normal" chlorine pools. There are also reports of no eye stinging or chlorine smells as occurs in "normal" chlorine pools. It's also worth pointing out that UV and ozone treated pools are often not chlorine-free though they have much lower chlorine levels than your average chlorinated pool. Shedsan 18:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

External Links

Re: http://www.homehelp4u.net/tipsandplanning/in_ground_swimming_pool.php, posted: 13:40, 16 March 2007 by Sander Snel. Is this a commercial link? Shedsan 18:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I've been removing it as it's been added - it must have slipped past my radar this time. Graham87 01:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

My edits

Amongst the other fixes I mentioned to this article in my edit summaries, I also removed the routine for going to pools in Iceland from the dress code section. That can easily be checked on the website provided as a reference. Graham87 10:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

What does ORP Stand For ?

Under the heading "Pool water disinfection" there is more than one reference to ORP, but I am confused as to what it stands for there is no explanation, can someone please write its definition in between parentheses or something ? thx Thebutterfly 09:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)TheButterfly

Oxygen Reduction Potential - the measure of oxidisation possible through the presence of chlorine in the pool. It's measured as an electrical resistance, and is more accurate than " 2.0 ppm" (parts per million) that most test kits give. Around 654mv is normal, I believe.
[[Kiwilarry 05:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)]]

Nothing on Pool Houses?

After a very random conversation with a friend of mine, I decided to look up "pool house" because I had heard the term before but wasn't exactly sure of what they were specifically for (and I was procrastinating on work I should've been doing). Surprisingly, the most closely related search result I got was a page kept for historical purposes that dicussed the deletion of an article called "Pool Party House" due to it having a low notability factor and small google results and few links to it. Now, I wasn't extremely interested in the subject to begin with, but in my google search the term "Pool House" at least has 838,000 results, including a link to a magazine specifically selling them. I'm still not totally sure of what they are (i skimmed the magazine site as it was the top result), and maybe they are different from whatever "Pool Party Houses" were, but regardless it seems like the topic would probably be included at least on this page. I'm not dying to know what they are, but Wikipedia not having even an article stub on them has now made me a lot more interested, and surely somebody knows enough to start something on them?
Oh, and if there actually is an article on wikipedia about what they are, and I just have the completely wrong name but someone can figure out what I'm talking about, I apologize for the wordy confusion (and please direct me to the page)! Thank you. Irish♣Pearl 00:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Check "Swimming Pools" now ...The section on pool filtration: other equipment
Quote: Most swimming pool installations incorporate an outdoor structure ....... up to a full-size Pool House (AKA "Pool Shed") with separate pool equipment area, bathroom, shower, changing areas, and in some cases even a rumpus-room type entertainment area. As pool-side parties are common amongst pool owning families, the Pool House forms the focal point for adult attendees, while the pool itself remains the realm of the children
Kiwilarry 02:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Fleischacker Pool

How about some mention of Fleischacker Pool in San Francisco? As I recall it was built in the 1930's and billed as the largest salt water pool in the world being 1000 feet long and 100 feet wide with a rowboat for lifeguards because the pool was too big to cover from the sides. I believe the pool was filled in around 1970 and the area is now part of the San Francisco Zoo. (The city apparently couldn't afford to keep the pool going -- the salt water was very corrosive and the location, near the ocean in S.F., meant very few warm sunny days so patronage was light.) I'm not sure of the details and, unfortunately, wasn't successful in Googling for them. My main recollection of the pool is swimming from one end to other in the mid-1960's.

69.111.121.9 00:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You have misspelt it. I'd just done some googling and this forum post lead me to the correct spelling with two h's. We have articles about the Fleishhacker Pool and Herbert Fleishhacker. I think they should somehow be incorporated into this article. Graham87 02:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

And I have just added some info about the pool. Graham87 04:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't really know why this long-closed pool is being referenced (who knows --- there maybe someone reading this Wiki section wanting the visit the closed Fleishhacker Pool/SF Zoo parking lot...in any case the U.S. Library of Congress has some interesting and detailed black and white photographs of this former swimmimg pool at the following URL:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/displayPhoto.pl?path=/pnp/habshaer/ca/ca0600/ca0642/photos&topImages=016225pr.jpg&topLinks=016225pv.jpg,016225pu.tif&title=18.%20%20AERIAL%20VIEW%20OF%20ENTIRE%20POOL%20FROM%20SOUTHEAST%20%3cbr%3eHABS%20CAL,38-SANFRA,136-18&displayProfile=0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.129.64.183 (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding a link

I work for the America's Most Wanted Safety Center, a new department of America's Most Wanted getting away from the capturing of criminals, and branching out to all aspects of safety. I feel a link to our post about pool safety would be appropriate and mutually beneficial. The link is http://www.amw.com/safety/?p=62 please consider it. Jrosenfe 15:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The content of the article is too narrow to be added in the external links section for swimming pools - it's a good article but I'm afraid it would create a slippery slope with other people wanting to add their own articles. It could be used as a reference though. Graham87 08:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

{{TrollWarning}}

I added the {{TrollWarning}} tag to the top of this discussion page because the page may be subject to trolling in the next few days, mainly because of trolls who target the Habbo Hotel article, vandalising the page and its discussion page with "pool's closed" and racist comments. Sebi _[talk] 23:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone is a little sensitive. While I'm not a fan of trolling, I think it was kind of cute. Where is the racism in all this? User:ChanceGEMT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.179.85 (talk) 04:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

Thought wiki could clear this question up I have, but found no info on it. I was wondering how many lenghts of a regular swimming pool are in a mile? I heard it was 62. --McNoddy 11:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

In an regular swimming pool(25m in lenght) it takes approximately 64.37 lenghts to swim a mile[[1]] I found this info and thought it could be added to expand this article. Whats everyones thoughts and opinions on this subject??--McNoddy 14:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that information is too trivial to add to the article. The calculation is relatively easy once you know how to convert miles to metres. Twenty-five metres is a common swimming pool length but by no means the only one. Graham87 14:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thats a good point, its just i was wondering how many people like myself would come to this page looking to know this information (its maybe just a few). But thats what I thought encyclopedia's were for, to spread knowledge etc Do you know what I mean --McNoddy 16:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedias exist to spread knowledge, but the knowledge should ideally relevant and well-organised. The mile and the 25 metre lengths are arbitrary and a discussion of the ratio between the length of a type of swimming pool and a certain unit of measure is not relevant in the article. However, an imperial equivalent for 25 metres is given and that should be enough for most readers to visualise the length of a 25m pool. Graham87 05:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Synonym for Swimming Pool.

When I was in high school, the swimming pool was called something else. Can someone tell me the synonym? Thanks --Demonesque 18:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No one knows the term for an indoor swimming pool? If it helps, I think it began with an "A." Are there any scientific or Latin words or terms for a swimming pool? --Demonesque 07:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe "aquatic centre"? "Aqua" is Latin for "water". Places with other facilities besides swimming pools are sometimes called Leisure centres. Graham87 09:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

"natatorium" is a popular one as well. Aquadrome sounds kinda theatrical but could apply I guess. Lime in the Coconut 17:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

How can you have an article about Swimming Pools with no mention of plaster?

How can you have an article about Swimming Pools with no mention of plaster? Probably 80% have plaster finish coat. Here's a good link to a tutorial about a guy who replastered his own pool saving $15,000: http://www.truetex.com/pool.htm -Anon E Mouse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.28.46 (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Heating and maintainance

I wish someone could write more about heating of pools and maintainance in addition to winterization. --88.112.42.115 (talk) 14:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems pretty dumb to protect this page. It's not political.

Why not unprotect so it can be improved? It seems rather incomplete. -anon E mouse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.31.84 (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

As you can see in the log, this article has issues with vandalism.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 05:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect line

In the intro it states: This is done by using filters, ensuring pools have adequate flow rate and chemical disinfectants such as chlorine, bromine or mineral sanitizers.

This can be made into: This is done by chemical disinfectants such as chlorine, bromine or mineral sanitizers, and additional filters. Alternatively, pools can be made without chemical disinfectants by using a biofilter with additional filters. In both cases, pools need to be fitted with a adequate flow rate.

What does that last one mean ? Does it mean the water needs to be changed regularly or that the filter pumps need to have a certain flow rate ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KVDP (talk • contribs) 18:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, but I've changed it to your suggested version because it sounds better. Graham87 05:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

lido

At ocean pool, there was a link to lido; a lido is simply a pool with tanning chairs, ... it has nothing to do with a ocean pool and nothing to do in that section. A salt water swimming pool article should be made

Also clarify whether a salt water pool can also be made with brakish water. In this case, are there too no chemicals added ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KVDP (talk • contribs) 18:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

That's in the see also section and doesn't need to be removed from there. I'm not sure about your salt water pool question. Graham87 05:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you've done with your edit to the sswimming pool article. Graham87 05:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Diving boards and spinal injuries

Maybe I missed it, but should there be mention of diving boards as well as injury due to diving in shallow water ect in the safety section, since this seems to happen quite often? Maybe the regulars here could add it or advise me of the errors of my ways :) Very nice article by the way. Cheers, --Tom (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It would probably be more relevant in the diving or diving board articles. There used to be a paragraph in this article about an incident involving diving boards, but it was removed in April 2008 for not being relevant, a removal I generally agreed with at the time. That text is now in the diving and diving board articles. Graham87 00:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Saftey sections

Looking at the safety section, it seems like it was hijacked by a representative of one of the companies pushing the automated drowning sensor systems. Having worked for a good many pools, I cannot believe that public pools would install this system other than to test out the technology. Aside from the liability issues, it seems that these systems don't even work reliably. Taking a gander at the Poseidon drowning detection system article lead me to this belief. The article is very unencyclopedic in both content and style. It has no references, but tons of external links to sites pushing this stuff.

I don't think it needs to be stricken from the article, but it should definitely give the idea that these detection systems are for private use, or for public use where lifeguards aren't on duty. It seems that they have limited usefulness - in still water - and that they in fact do more to distract lifeguards than to alert them. The article mentions the need to divert one's focus from the water to the alarm system and the numerous false alarms as factors for this.

The line "Among these are the Poseidon system, Swimguard, and the Drowning Early Warning System (DEWS)." doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. I'm going to remove it after I finish with this. This isn't the yellow pages, and we don't need to advertise for these companies. Along that line of thinking, I believe that the individual pages created for these products and the page Pool safety camera should be closely scrutinized and reworded so as to not promote these products or even their technology. That article also has no references, but a ton of advertising links. Also, neither page has anything on the talk page, so it looks like no one is keeping track of them.

Also, when I imagine a section entitled "safety", I see a section that discusses potentially unsafe practices and how to avoid them. Things like don't run around pools, don't bring glass (especially clear glass) near pools, etc. Lime in the Coconut 18:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Good catch - specific manufacturers shouldn't be mentioned in the swimming pool article. The article pool safety camera isn't brilliant but it can probably be saved, so I've tagged it as being unreferenced. On the other hand, the Poseidon drowning detection system article shouldn't be here and I've proposed it for deletion. Graham87 07:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Statistics on Private pool ownership worldwide

I would like to request editors here add stats on private pool ownership worldwide. Which countries have the highest pool density, info on pool value and economic factors would also enhance the article. A map of pools distribution worldwide would be nice, I looked but didnt find anything. Maybe someone can get google maps and create a map of pools worldwide.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 10:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

New section needed on Types of pool construction

Unless I missed it, a section should be included on Gunite, Fiberglass and Marbalite pools. In this section the comparisons can be done between the different in ground pool types. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

There is an article about construction methods for private pools, which goes into more detail about the topic than the main swimming pool article. However, it doesn't seem to cover everything that you've just described. Graham87 01:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks we should link it to here or have a stub summary, if not done already.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 03:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

We already did, but I've just made the link more prominent. Graham87 14:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Oldest swimming club in the world

Maidstone does not have the oldest swimming club in the world. That title probably goes to Uppsala Simsällskap in Uppsala, Sweden, whih was founded in 1796. They are still active, and one of their members is going to the 2012 Olympic games. http://www2.idrottonline.se/UpsalaSimsallskap-Simidrott/OmUS/Historik/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.21.67.50 (talk) 09:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. If you want to, go ahead and add that info to the article, citing the page you listed above. Does it say that the Uppsala Simsällskap is the oldest club of its type in the world? I can't read Swedish so I don't feel comfortable using it as a reference myself. Graham87 00:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I've just noticed that you tried to do that but your edit was reverted. If the answer to my above question is yes, I'll add the text back for you. Perhaps the site you mentioned can be used to expand the history section a bit more; it seems awfully anglocentric at the moment. Graham87 00:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggested correction

In the non-beta non-experimental mobile version there is obvious vandalism of "FROGS EAT LITTLE PIES IN THE BEACH" and "FOR LITTLE ARMADILLOS". This may be a bug as the article was edited before to remove it. 166.137.118.93 (talk) 22:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, looks fine to me on my phone. I'm guessing it may be the app's outdated cache? ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@SuperHamster: Unregistered readers get cached versions of pages (no matter whether they're using the desktop or the mobile site), which can sometimes result in them seeing vandalism even though it's been removed from a page. To force the latest version of a page to appear, purge its cache (which I've just done on the swimming pool article). Graham87 05:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Man-made

What are your thoughts on the term "man-made" being used here?? It is a term that uses the word "man" to refer to people of both genders, which is inconsistent with gender-neutral language. Anyone have any thoughts on whether GNL is appropriate?? I suggest I get responses from people who understand GNL well, and if you're an opponent of GNL (in general, not just on Wikipedia) you should reveal the reason. Georgia guy (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

That is a much-less-than-neutral way of putting it. Editors should read the cross-posting here for the back story. Anyone can answer this so please disregard the poster's qualifiers and disqualifiers.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Historically, I thought that "artificial" can always replace "man-made". But then one day, I made this edit to Eiffel Tower and somebody disliked my re-wording so much and they reverted my edit. We have to think of a clear way to use GNL here. We should always try. But, you should be glad I finally took it to the appropriate talk page now. Georgia guy (talk) 16:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Per definition the term "man-made" already is gender neutral, so there's absolutely no reason to change it. And I strongly suggest that Georgia guy strikes out the entire second and third sentence. You're in no position to more or less demand that only people who know GNL voice their opinion here, this discussion is open to any editor on en-WP, both registered users and IPs. You also have no right to more or less demand that people tell you what their opinion about gender-neutral language is, neither in this context nor in general. This is a discussion about a suggested change to the lede/lead of this particular article, only, not a discussion about gender-neutral language in general, whether on or off Wikipedia. Thomas.W ^talk 16:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

It derives from gender-generic man; it implies that "man" is a gender-generic term. I'm discussing improvement to the term "man-made" in the article; I'm explaining my best why I want this to change to modern GNL rather than traditional language. I am normally an advocate of WP:GNL, but I have to realize that many anglophones (including the un-registered user who reverted my original edit) are neutral to GNL (that is, they're neither advocates nor opponents.) This is why WP:GNL is just an essay, but I also want the essay not to look too much like it's a policy because Wikipedians are telling me that "because it's an essay, it is okay to ignore it". Georgia guy (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

That may be your personal interpretation of it, but according to various dictionaries the word/term man-made does not derive from gender-specific man, but from gender-neutral mankind. Which is why it is described as being gender-neutral, and your personal opinion does not outweigh reliable sources. Thomas.W ^talk 17:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Mankind also derives from gender-generic man. In order to complete what you said, you must include as part of it that "mankind" also does not derive from "man" being used gender-generically. Georgia guy (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

No, it does not. See Oxford Dictionaries: "in Old English the principal sense of man was ‘a human being’, and the words wer and wif were used to refer specifically to ‘a male person’ and ‘a female person’ respectively. Subsequently, man replaced wer as the normal term for ‘a male person’, but at the same time the older sense ‘a human being’ remained in use". Gender-specific man is derived from man as in mankind, not the other way around. Thomas.W ^talk 17:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• (ec) Using man-made is correct usage and there is no need to change it. To suggest that it is archaic is incorrect. It's etymology may be seen here and its neutral derivation may be seen here. Somebody is tilting at windmills.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying it derives from gender-generic man. Did you read my posts incorrectly?? Gender-neutral language uses "person" and "human being" as gender-generic terms. Georgia guy (talk) 17:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Mankind is gender neutral. Period.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of what the WP:GNL essay says?? Do you (not necessarily totally, but partially) disagree with it?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, totally regardless of what WP:GNL says, an essay does not outweigh multiple reliable sources. Thomas.W ^talk 17:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

What is the most reliable source about the gender-generic use of the word "man" that you know of?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Why do you try to change the subject of the discussion all the time? This is not a discussion about gender-neutral language in general, this is a discussion about your proposed change to the lede/lead of this article, changing "man-made" to "made by people (as opposed to natural)". And nothing else. Thomas.W ^talk 17:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

(ec) You aren't able to refute the ref's that you have been shown. Have you read them? Have you understood them?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Those references are examples of dictionary definitions. Dictionaries list common meanings of words; they're usually descriptive, not prescriptive. You already said that "man-made" derives from "mankind", but didn't include what "mankind" derives from. Both terms are examples of gender-generic "man". (In contrast, "human" doesn't derive from "man" despite containing "man" in it.) Georgia guy (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And WP:GNL isn't prescriptive either. We go by what is common usage in English, we don't lead, so we don't use neologisms or new interpretations of old words. If you want to change that I suggest you try to get WP:GNL elevated to the status of policy, until then it is only the personal opinion of one or more editors, and does not give you the right to make changes that are opposed by other editors, or edit-war to keep your changes in the article. And that is the end of my participation in this discussion since I've already wasted too much time on it, on three different pages. Thomas.W ^talk 18:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

You said, If you want to change that I suggest you try to get WP:GNL elevated to the status of policy, until then it is only the personal opinion of one or more editors, and does not give you the right to make changes that are opposed by other editors, or edit-war to keep your changes in the article. I wish I could, but it can be very hard because some people dislike gender-neutral language. You also say "We don't use neologisms or new interpretations of old words." It is not new to Wikipedia to interpret "man" or words derived from "man" as gender-specific. Georgia guy (talk) 18:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes it does. Rather than argue with someone being intentionally abstruse that conflates issues and tries to obfuscate the actual arguments, we'll wait on other editors to chime in so that we may form a consensus.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Now, suppose the edit that I had made were a change of "fireman" to "fire fighter", a change of "policeman" to "police officer", or a change of "mailman" to "mail carrier"?? These are words that use "-man" as a suffix, and words of this kind I've known for ages as words that are becoming less accepted as gender-generic. It's tremendously surprising that words with "man-" as a prefix (e.g. man-made and mankind) are still widely accepted as gender-generic despite inconsistency with words with "-man" as a suffix. (Now, the question I'm asking is what would you have done if I had made such an edit, so it relates to this particular edit.) (Note also that this question is for any editor who sees this discussion.) Georgia guy (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind "man-made", but I can see why people might object to it, and as the MOS says, "see if a rewrite can make the issue moot." The wording used here is inartfully long, but how about simply "is an artificial container"? -sche (talk) 20:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Is it the case that swimming pools must be man-made / artificial, though? A Google Books search for "a natural swimming pool" turns up many hits talking about pond-like pools people have excavated (i.e. pools which are still artificial), but also things like this: "Fortunately, a waterfall thrums down the nearby mountains and forms a natural swimming pool at the entrance." (Sean Harvey, The Rough Guide to the Dominican Republic, 2009, ISBN 1858288118, page 321.) -sche (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth:

• The Handbook of Non-Sexist Writing (Miller and Swift) says:

"Speakers and writers often use man-prefixed compounds in contexts where man represents males alone or both males and females, but they tend to avoid such compounds as incongruous when the subjects are explicitly female. ... When the fact that something has been made by women or by men or by both is irrelevant – and it usually is –various sex-neutral alternatives to man-made are available ..."

• The Chambers Dictionary (2003) defines swimming pool as "an artificial pool for swimming in".
• Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1976) has "a pool suitable for swimming; esp: a tank (as of concrete or plastic) made for swimming".

So that's two possibilities for avoiding the distraction of sexism.

--Boson (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's not make this more complicated than it needs to be. I understand that not everyone thinks "man-made" is sexist or even gendered and there are sources, like the American Heritage Dictionary that even say flat-out that it's not, but if there is another word that's just as good, like "artificial," we should use that and call everything else moot. No one did anything wrong by saying "man-made," but replacing it might be an improvement anyway. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that "artificial" is the best word to use here. Georgia guy (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

No, we should not use a crappy Greek substitute for a good Germanic word just because some people have trouble wrapping their minds around it. The existing variety should be retained, per WP:ENGVAR. RGloucester — ☎ 14:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

To address your concerns about foreign words, RG, "artificial" was present in Middle English. [2] It might have a Latin root (coming to English through Old French) but it's been an English word since before our current form of English existed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no justification for writing "synthetic" whatsoever. The existing variety is retained, and that was "man-made". There is no justification for changing, and no consensus to do so. "Synthetic" is not a suitable substitute for "man-made". RGloucester — ☎ 17:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Re "the existing variety is retained": as you may notice, WP:RETAIN covers national varieties, and Anglish is not a national or otherwise protected variety of English. As an aside, anyone trying to avoid Foreign language influences in English has bigger fish to fry: 75% of the words in English are from non-Germanic sources, including, in the first few sentences of this article, "container", "intended", "based", "recreation", "constructed", "materials"... (Goodness, the whole thing would be unintelligible to Æthelstan! Good thing Wikipedia isn't limited to writing in Anglish; it couldn't even be called Wikipedia if it were!) -sche (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

"A swimming pool, swimming bath, or wading pool [drop "paddling pool" since "paddle" is from Latin] is a great hole made in the ground or elsewhere and filled with water for swimming or having fun in. Such pools can be built from things like rockdough, orestuff orething, newclay, or strandglass. Hie [don't say "they", it's a loanword] can be only pretty, or of bespoken shape or greatness, or hie may be of a ruled size..." -sche (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC) (edit: I wonder why the Anglish Wikia recommended "orestuff" for metal, given that "stuff" is from French...) -sche (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Sources on "man-made"

There seems to be some question as to whether "man-made" is sexist or not. I find it useful to line up the sources and determine what they say on this matter. I've gone through the conversation above and tried to list every relevant example that contributors have made so far. (I did not list Oxford Dictionaries because they do not say whether "man-made" is gender-neutral or not, but the actual OED might.) In my opinion, the most general sources should be given the most credence, dictionaries and general-audience style guides. I've placed them on the top. I've also included national origin of the source in case there turns out to be a variety-level split on this issue.

Since style guides that do not consider "man-made" to be sexist are not likely to mention the term at all, it may be appropriate to give examples of RS that use the term as well.

Anyone who wants to may add to or modify the lists below; they are for everyone. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

this page on Etymology Online describes the gender-neutral origin of "man" in words like "man-made", "mankind" and others. Thomas.W ^talk 23:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Just because a word has gender-neutral origin doesn't mean it will always be gender-neutral. Georgia guy (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

No one is contesting that "man" did not have a sexist origin. It clearly did not. This is about what the word "man-made" means right now. I also removed Oxford Dictionaries because the entry does not contain any information about whether they think "man-made" is sexist or not. For a dictionary, merely listing a word is not an endorsement of that word. This would not be the case for say, a newspaper or journal that uses "man-made." Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: I looked at Oxford Dictionaries more closely to see if the lack of comment could be considered an endorsement (for example, if it didn't list "manpower" as sexist but did give such a note for "mankind," then we could reasonably infer that OD did not think that "manpower" was sexist). While there, I found their usage note on "man." They say that the use of "man" to mean "everyone" is now sexist and give "mankind" and "manpower" as examples without specifically listing "man-made." I think it is reasonable to infer that OD considers "man-" words in general sexist. Thoughts? Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

That's logical. Thanks for gathering these resources. I'm going to use them to add a usage note to wikt:man-made. -sche (talk) 07:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

If anyone reinserts the gender-specific "man-made", I'll just remove the epithet altogether. "Container" has the flavour of something not natural in this context. Tony (talk) 07:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Besides which, as I wrote above (Ctrl-F "natural swimming pool"), "swimming pool" does at least sometimes refer to natural pools. -sche (talk) 08:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

@Tony1: Get your undo button fired up. --Izno (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

"Man-made" is sufficiently gender-neutral

1. American Heritage Dictionary American Heritage Dictionary U.S.
2. The Washington Post [3] U.S.
3. The New York Times [4] U.S.

"Man-made" is not sufficiently gender-neutral

1. Oxford Dictionaries (usage note on "man," gives "mankind" and "manpower" as examples) [5] U.K.
2. Language Portal of Canada [6] Canada
3. Purdue OWL [7] U.S.
4. National Council of Teachers of English [8] U.S.
5. Queen's University [9] Canada
6. The Handbook of Non-Sexist Writing (Miller and Swift)

Health and medical aspects

Neurons regenerate more at water because of its hydrostatical and hydrodynamical properties. Organization of Neurons: neuronal pools RippleSax (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Swimming pool. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110115111025/http://blogs.ngm.com:80/blog_central/2010/03/big-dipper-the-worlds-largest-pool.html to http://blogs.ngm.com/blog_central/2010/03/big-dipper-the-worlds-largest-pool.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080113180917/http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com:80/records/amazing_feats/big_stuff/largest_swimming_pool.aspx to http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/records/amazing_feats/big_stuff/largest_swimming_pool.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Swimming pool. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120109232507/http://www.sfzoo.org:80/historicsites to http://www.sfzoo.org/historicsites

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Respiratory risks of indoor swimming pools

There is a new article created at Respiratory risks of indoor swimming pools, which I think should probably be merged into Swimming pool#Safety. I don't know much about the topic, but this doesn't seem like it would warrant its own article. Please review the article and discuss. Bradv 19:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Artificial

They are artificial. Otherwise they would be called "natural pools" or "the sea". The entire article is about man made swimming pools like the kind you find half destroyed and on fire down your local council leisure center. Those heated, concrete, tiled pools you find in millionaires back yards didn't come about by natural forces did they? They were built there. Hence they are artificial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.12.102.123 (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

"That is"

While I don't know the background of the dispute here, I tend to agree with the IP editor -- "that is" does not appear to be needed in the lead sentence, and can be removed without changing its meaning. I don't get why there is resistance to the change, and am tempted to make it myself but would like to avoid jumping into an edit war. Calidum ¤ 15:48, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Exactly what I was thinking. I also think the extra words are unnecessary. --Mirokado (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

It's block evasion by Cebr1979. But if you guys are happy to take responsibility for the change, I'm cool with it. Graham87 07:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Swimming pool. 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/20150223150923/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/oliver.merrington/lidos/refs.htm to http://homepage.ntlworld.com/oliver.merrington/lidos/refs.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070301130129/http://www.edmonton.com/tourism/page.asp?page=378 to http://www.edmonton.com/tourism/page.asp?page=378
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150910234726/http://www.fina.org/project/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=51&Itemid=119 to http://www.fina.org/project/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=51&Itemid=119

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) 15:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Unprotection

Can full move protection be removed from this talk page and the article? 117.195.174.152 (talk) 08:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• Why? There's absolutely no valid reason for anyone to move the article without a prior thorough discussion. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 08:20, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• It was protected due to page-move vandalism by User:Grawp. 45.121.223.58 (talk) 11:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

That's not an answer to my question. Why do you want the protection removed? Hint: It's there to protect not only against moves to other names but also against moves intended to circumvent the protection of the article, a protection that is there to prevent spamming. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Homes, hotels and health clubs

Why does this article say "pools are common in homes are in homes, hotels and health clubs"? This makes it sound as if most homes have a swimming pool. Vorbee (talk) 06:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The article actually says "Hot tubs and spas....are common in homes, hotels, and health clubs". Not quite the same thing, but still problematic. They do exist in some homes, but certainly not most. I've had a go at fixing it. See what you think. HiLo48 (talk) 07:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pilarshimizu.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)