Jump to content

Talk:Toilet paper orientation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 14, 2010Articles for deletionKept
August 31, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
January 11, 2019Articles for deletionKept
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 12, 2010.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that most people orient their toilet paper with the loose end hanging over the top and away from the wall (pictured)?

mergy

[edit]

Hi ,

I suggest this article to be merged into Toilet paper

--Railfan01 (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That article links to this one. This article is so huge that merging it into another article would require killing 90% of this article ... which might not be a bad idea ... but in general, I'd think a merger is not necessary. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Much of this article is fluff from non-serious magazine and newspaper articles, and some material is barely on-topic. Looking through the talkpage history, the existence of the article is somewhat contentious, with some folks feeling that the topic is a little too light-hearted for an encyclopedia, and the current tone and content of the article somewhat supports that view. I think the topic is noteworthy, and I think there exists the possibility of making a decent encyclopedic article on the topic; however, as it currently stands, the route to trimming into worthwhile content and then merging that into Toilet paper, is also possible, and may be the easier (and more appropriate?) route. SilkTork (talk) 10:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading section is useless

[edit]

The "further reading" section appears to be, with the exception of the engineers' study, random articles or books that mention toilet paper orientation at some point. It adds nothing to the article and does not provide places for the reader to find more information, which is its point. I propose to delete it entirely. Any thoughts? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have trimmed it extensively. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have separated the non-used links from the References section into an External links section. This now reveals that there is an excessive amount of unused links. I have not examined the links against the WP:EL criteria, however, even if they all meet the criteria, there are too many of them, and they would need to be whittled down to a more reasonable number - perhaps two or three at most, given the simplicity of the subject matter. SilkTork (talk) 10:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. As you've noted, this article has long been a semi-joking mess. I occasionally walk through, swinging a wiki-machete, but much more is needed. I haven't looked at it in a while; ye gods that list of external links is ridiculous. I thought I had trimmed it more than that! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They were hidden in the References section: [1]. I have a preference setting which indicates when there is no link pointing to a citation so I could more easily identify them and move them out. But it still took a while as there were so many of them! Looking again now, I note that some are Further reading rather than External links. I will likely move the whole lot to the talkpage shortly, as the ones I am checking do not meet WP:EL criteria.
I am also looking at the Survey section. The bulk of that section is essentially saying that around 60% of people prefer the over position, but it is saying it over and over again. While the Context and relevance section is not a direct discussion on the topic, but a discussion on sociological thinking and psychology which may use toilet paper orientation as an example of the way people make choices, and such discussion could be placed in pretty much any article which is used as an example, such as cola, baseball, sock and cutlery drawers, etc. There is a degree of original research in that section. I raised these concerns 11 years ago when doing the GA review. I think the topic has potential, but this article does not match that potential. SilkTork (talk) 03:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Be bold! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

These links and further reading suggestions are excessive so are being reviewed per Wikipedia:External_links#Maintenance_and_review. They do not appear to meet the requirements at WP:EL, failing WP:ELNO#1 at least. However, they may be of use to editors wishing to work on the article so they have been moved here. If, after examination, a link is found not to be useful it can be removed from this list. If, however, the link does prove useful, the first approach is to see if appropriate information can be summarised in the article, using the link as a reliable source if it meets the WP:RELIABLE criteria. Be aware that, per WP:ELBURDEN, none of these links should be returned to the article without first gaining consensus that it meets the requirements at WP:EL or Wikipedia:Further reading. SilkTork (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Toilet roll holder#Orientation discussion

[edit]

See Talk:Toilet_roll_holder#Merge_Toilet_paper_orientation_to_Toilet_roll_holder. SilkTork (talk) 14:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Uses in social studies section to Social constructionism

[edit]

There is material in the Uses in social studies section which appear more appropriate for the article on Social constructionism. It's probably a judgement call as to where that material is best placed, though as the section is essentially about social constructionism (and how people's views on toilet roll orientation can be a tool to help students understand social constructionism, and how it is one example in a number of others, such as "the orientation of cutlery in a dishwasher, the choice of which drawer in a chest of drawers to place one's socks, and the order of shampooing one's hair and lathering one's body in the shower") rather than about the toilet paper and its orientation, it would seem best placed in Social constructionism. SilkTork (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OR Tag

[edit]

@QueenofBithynia: I removed the OR tag. I think you should discuss that here. --evrik (talk) 13:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Example of OR: The over position is shown in illustrations with the first patent for a toilet-roll holder, issued in 1891 - cited to an image from a patent on patents.google.com. This might be true, but it needs secondary reliable sources to cite this, not us. This was just the most glaring one for me; I don't have the time to go through this article line-by-line, but considering this piece of original research has stayed for as long as it has, then it's likely there are other instances within the article. QueenofBithynia (talk) 10:04, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The detail that needs secondary is for the patent being the first, not merely stating what the patent actually says (WP:PATENTS). I found some prior art from the same year (updated in the article). There are some slightly older patents from the same inventor (Seth Wheeler), who did a lot of work on various rolled-paper products and dispensers for the E. B. Eddy Company, but patents.google only seems to have full-text of US not CA from that era. Patent "prior art" is a reliable way of finding older examples, but I think simply not finding prior art is WP:OR that there actually isn't any. DMacks (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bias towards under position?

[edit]

In the article, a paragraph is written on the under position describing the benefits of using it. This would be fine if the over position also had a paragraph of similar length. However, it doesn’t, and that is something that needs to be addressed. People will gain more information on the under position and all they see on the over position is a mere patent. I understand if citations are needed to gain this data, but it is clearly a biased perspective on toilet paper orientation. Thank you for reading. Senomo Drines (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, the over position also has a paragraph's worth of atttributes but they were part of a bigger paragraph. I have broken them out. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:48, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I could've gotten anything else done today until I checked to see if anyone was actually championing one position or the other here in Talk. – AndyFielding (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you get a holiday-bonus or employee-of-the-month award for high productivity, remember that you owe Wikipedia big-time for it. DMacks (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cats in the house suggestion

[edit]

No mention is made of cats and the necessity of the under-position to prevent piles of tp on the floor. On the other paw, so many citations, notes, and further reading entries are reffed to press releases that a wikicane-cutting-machina may be necessary. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 22:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC) —[reply]

The article does say "The under position ... reduces the risk of ... a cat unrolling the toilet paper when batting at the roll". As far as I remember, that point has been in the article for years. Melchoir (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article blatant bias toward horizontality.

[edit]

I am disappointed that the article only contains information relating to rolls of toilet paper that are on horizontal holders. I have seen multiple instances of toilet paper rolls that are on vertical holders, and the holders themselves for sale in hardware stores. I'd be interested to see sections relating to the vertical holders and details of debates between the clockwise and counterclockwise orientation of the rolls upon them. This is not trivial but is a very present issue; Google "vertical toilet roll holder" to see how common they are. 2600:1700:EA01:1090:2101:5D44:C4A1:A5D1 (talk) 18:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you're serious - as serous as one can be with this topic - there's no discussion that I've ever seen on left/right for vertical holders. It's not even a tongue-in-cheek debate. If you can source actual discussion about the topic, then add it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Landers details and citations

[edit]

I have improve the Landers details and citations. You can read about it and find copies of the columns here. Reagle (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Belbury I don't think you should remove the Guardian piece from the article altogether. That was the sole source for the Lander's claim, and an interesting review of this topic's play in popular culture until I improved it. It only seems "unremarkable" because I spent hours tracking down the original Landers' columns in the archives. Since the Guardian is not the source for the claim anymore, I improved the description of what the Guardian piece spoke of. Reagle (talk) 13:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good work in adding stronger sources, but I don't think we owe the weaker WP:NEWSOPED one any favours for being superseded, certainly not a full sentence of A 2021 article in The Guardian reviewed the controversy in the lead. It's a filler opinion piece for the lifestyle section.
If we think it's worth writing in this article about Oprah, the Toilet Paper Personality Test or the TikTok claim that the journalist presented as "no idea whether it's credible or not", we can cite the source stories that they're linking to, or, once again, find better ones. Belbury (talk) 13:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added a section on pop culture and add cites for most of the things mentioned, but I'd prefer not cite them as they aren't the most reliable things themselves. Still, the fact that they are mentioned in the Guardian is relevant evidence of its appearance in popular culture. Reagle (talk) 13:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the sources linked to from the Guardian seem okay, the Oprah Daily blog and the Indy100 interview.
I think A 2021 article in The Guardian reviewed the controversy is overstating it when this is just a short lifestyle piece, the kind of clipping that will have been written hundreds of times since the 1970s. Saying that in 2021 a Guardian journalist mentioned the 1891 patent design isn't by itself an insightful piece of pop culture.
I'll have a go at expanding the section. It's certainly worth saying more about what the viral TikTok and personality test actually were. Belbury (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Toilet_paper_orientation&oldid=1239127481"