Talk:Icelandic Phallological Museum/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Invisible elf penis

(Wouldn't that make a great band name?) Anyway, I've gone back to the original source, Der Spiegel, for the line which currently seems to be the subject of dispute. The source says [1]: "Dennoch gibt er zu, dass ihm der allererste Penis, der Ochsenziemer, und der Elfenpenis, der natürlich genau wie alle Elfen und Trolle in Island nicht sichtbar ist, am meisten ans Herz gewachsen sind." I've recast the line in the article as a pretty straight reflection of this: "Hjartarson says that the elf's penis is among his favourites, though it cannot be seen, as Icelandic folklore holds that elves and trolls are invisible." Prioryman (talk) 06:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thank you. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Should we name the human donors?

Two of those who volunteered to donate their penises - an American and an Icelandic man - are named in multiple sources. The Icelander is deceased, and the American seems to be very happy to be given recognition, so should we give their names in the article? Prioryman (talk) 00:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Enriching Beach Mouse

The Enriching Beach Mouse is 'said to draw "money from the sea to enrich her owner"'. Is the "her" here a mistranslation for "his", or is this a rare case of a transgendered but not transsexual enriching beach mouse (Mus litorosus ssp. plutofaciens)? Deipnosophista (talk) 10:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The Icelandic National Handball Team sculpture origins

According to this article on Slate, the penises aren't casts, but rather just an artists creation. There are two conflicting origins of the sculpture, so I'm not sure how to proceed. Should both be included? Salubrious (talk) 07:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Another point is the "based on her own experience" which leaves the issue open to wild speculation. What is this meant to mean? Muleiolenimi (talk) 11:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Well-written and interesting article

This is a well-written and very interesting article. Thank you Prioryman for developing this informative article. --PlanetEditor (talk) 14:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Language error

The article states that " ソニックヘッジホッグ" is the Chinese variation of the name of the museum. In fact it is not; those characters belong to the Katakana script of the Japanese language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.69.1.17 (talk) 12:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I did not see that in the article, but I, too, immediately recognized the characters as Japanese when I saw them in your comment. I'm assuming it's been removed. Thanks. DrAndrewWinters (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Icelandic Phallological Museum/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 18:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll review this article. However the dead link needs to be fixed. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Link fixed. oyasumi (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments

"and an unfortunate stray polar bear" - "unfortunate" - not encyclopedic wording

Removed unfortunate. oyasumi (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"penis he owned as a child" - had owned since childhood, or had owned as a child?

I think had owned as a child is right here, but I'm not sure. oyasumi (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

He put the museum up for sale in 2003, and offered it to the city of Reykjavík as a gift" - seem contradictory

He did both, nobody ever bought it and the city never accepted the gift. It was handed to his son in 2012. oyasumi (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"just the front tip" - all quotes need an immediate citation

Is there a fee to tour the museum?

But wouldn't that be against WP:NOPRICES? oyasumi (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Reply

You don't have to give the price. It can say "for a fee" or whatever.

Yes, there's a fee. 1000 Icelandic króna. I'm not sure where to put this in the article, though. oyasumi (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting article, nicely presented!

MathewTownsend (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Provides references to all sources:

B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Main aspects are addressed:

B. Remains focused:
Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Doesn't matter about the fee. It's an interesting article, well done, and deserves to be a GA. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

What's happening with Wikipedia?

This article is disgusting! There is no reason, whatsoever, to feature an article of this nature on the main page of Wikipedia! Maybe you can't control what's out there on the internet, but to FEATURE an article here with this type of content without any ratings or warnings is inexcusable. MusicTree3 (talk) 04:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

What part of "Wikipedia is not censored" had you missed? "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so. Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms." That matters pertaining to sexuality are deeply uncomfortable for you might be the case (with this diff [2] as a guide), but that doesn't enjoin the rest of us. Perhaps we should turn your question around: what reason, in accordance with Wikipedia policy, do you proffer to not feature this article on the Main Page? Ravenswing 05:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? There are guidelines and rules users have to follow. Content like this needs to be removed so that the general public (including children) can use Wikipedia freely and safely. What gay agenda are you trying to promote? Oh, did I offend you? MusicTree3 (talk) 08:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
  - Indeed, there are rules users have to follow; I quoted one. Another is WP:CIVIL, which pertains to your perplexing personal attack. If following Wikipedia policies is too troublesome for you, perhaps you'd be better off over at Conservapedia. Ravenswing 08:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
    - Perhaps, Ravenswing. But now, it seems that you are making a personal attack. MusicTree3 (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
      - It is not a personal attack to point out a personal attack; among the other policies and guidelines with which you ought already to be familiar, kindly review WP:NPA. I see from your sparse edit count that you're a very sporadic and casual contributor to Wikipedia, and I invite you to review the links at WP:PILLAR to gain a greater understanding how Wikipedia works; the list of links an editor helpfully posted to your talk page would do for openers. Ravenswing 18:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
  - "Gay agenda"? Did you perhaps miss the fact in the article that most of the museum's visitors are in fact women? Prioryman (talk) 08:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
    - It makes about as much sense as MusicTree's premise that there is something about the existence of a penis museum that is somehow "unsafe" for children. Short of a snickering child choking on her PB&J at the keyboard, I'm curious as to what MT had in mind. Ravenswing 10:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
    - It's more likely the kid would vomit! MusicTree3 (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you kidding, MusicTree? This is one of the most wittily written items ever! Kudos to the writer/s of both the main article and the feature summary. I'm still chuckling... TyraniPowers (talk) 07:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree, MusicTree. This article is repulsing. The fact that it's on the main page only makes the situation worse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.208.209.249 (talk) 14:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Please explain how it is 'disgusting' and/or 'repulsive'; assume that I am culturally ignorant and do not know the bases from which you are arguing. Thank you. DS (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

While I don't have a problem with the article's featured status (I actually think it's hilarious), I can understand the disgust. It doesn't really have anything to do with ethnocentrism, but perhaps it has a slight influence on what I find disgusting. Nevertheless, the article is hilarious and interesting. The ice hockey team's penis casts (or whatever they are) are very interesting. It inadvertently says a thing or two about penis size among men. 71.225.105.104 (talk) 13:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I have to say I have no problem with this article either. Any children old enough to be using a computer unsupervised must know that men and boys have penises. Now, whether some people are letting their children browse the web without supervision when they are really too young to be doing so, that's a parenting problem, and not Wikipedia's responsibility. Yworo (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Featured article

Nice! A featured article on dicks. Very informative! Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 00:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Icelandic Phallological Museum. 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:

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) 05:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)