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.
{{editsemiprotected}}
example of a penis deviation: please show a bild of a dick, which is not straight but curved upwards (most common). the curve is moderat, so there are no problems to have sex.
[[File:penisdeviation2.jpg|25px]]
(edit conflict)Not done: - there are more suitable articles to discuss normal or abnormal curvature of the penis, such as Peyronie's disease or Chordee. There's no need for additional images in this article. --Darkwind (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
This Wikipedia page contains highly inappropriate images. The photos on this page are unnecessary, drawings would SUFFICE! I have visited other pages related to the human body--including a page mentioned in a news article "nude children" and I am absolutely appalled by what I have discovered. Wikipedia is permeated with pornographic images and I strongly urge you to purge Wikipedia of said images. The images were highly offensive to me, not to mention the fact that children have access to this site.
Please show some propriety and remove these graphic and pornographic images immediately.
See Atom's comment above. There are no pornographic images in the article. --NeilNtalk to me 22:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Ther should be a picture comparing a childs and adults penis
I have read the guidelines but I'd like to point out that Wikipedia may not have a legal responsibility, nor may its members feel any responsibility about the images on this article. However, it would behoove Wikipedia and its users to realize that this site is accessible to children in libraries and schools starting from as young as 5. Should it be? That's arguable, and ultimately the responsibility of the institutions. However, Wikipedia does nothing to advertise that this site may not be suitable to children to the general public, and images like those on this site or on ejaculation slip under the radar. Everyone I have talked to thought it just had drawings like other encyclopedias, but when they discovered the true content they were shocked and worried about what access their children had at schools and libraries. I know you're not going to change a thing, I'm just saying you could take a little social responsibility here guys. 24.9.48.69 (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
The article is no more offensive than a medical textbook. This has been discussed many times.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 20:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Pending changes
It is not rocket science to work out that most of the pending changes to this article are going to be unproductive. Let's hope that this is taken into account at the end of the trial.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 06:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Whoa boys! Just came across this article straight from a completely innocuous one about farming methods and wasn't expecting all the explicit pornography. I thought I had merely opened up an enclycopaedic article about anatomy but was half sickened by it all - can't imagine how some of the young girls would feel! Definitely those hardcore photos need to replaced by (if anything) less explicit illustrations more appropriate for educational purposes. Please!
Please read the various items at the top of this page; there is a discussion in the FAQ specifically regarding this issue. Tony Fox(arf!) 03:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
"Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so (see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer). Anyone can edit an article, and changes made are displayed immediately, 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.
Obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site, or clear vandalism) is usually removed quickly. Content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Wikipedia policies (especially neutral point of view) or the laws of the U.S. state of Florida where Wikipedia's servers are hosted, will also be removed. However, some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content."
I was surprised to hear your report of pornography on the Penis article, and so I went to go find it and remove it immediately. But -- I could not find anything pornographic, just some pictures of several penises. I reviewed the text, and found just an article describing human anatomy. Someone must have removed the pornography. Atom (talk) 03:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Dude, You are correct. This i not supposed to be there. Bussygirl i —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bussygirl i (talk • contribs) 13:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
There is no sch thing as an offensive penis. It can be wielded in an offensive manner, but the penis itself is a shy, nocturnal creature rarely sighted away from the bush. I think a prudish attitude is far more harmful, so I pray that the good citizens of Wikipedia never give in to this sort of puritanical pressure. It's the very fact that Wikipedia does not censor such images that makes it a better resource than those other encyclopedias you mentioned. If we show not reality but simply a drawing of reality, are we not guilty of hiding the truth? And where do you draw the line? You find photographs offensive, but somebody else could be horrified by a drawing. Then when we ban drawings and only have descriptions, somebody will be offended by the description. And then what do we have? Nothing, that's what!
Glancing at the history, it looks like the page has been blanked quite a few times. This makes me think that it is possibly offensive to some, so i'd like to suggest that we go easy with the illustrations, especially the photographic ones, like the one which shows the development of an erection. Drawings might be more acceptable, if such an illustration must be here. --Jerome Potts (talk) 21:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
A lot of the recent blanking occurred during the trial of pending changes, which was a predictable timewasting bonanza. The issue of offensiveness has to be covered by WP:NOTCENSORED, and the talk page header already advises how not to display the images. The argument that there are "too many" images and that drawings would be better has been made many times. As stated elsewhere on this talk page, the article is no more offensive than the average medical textbook. It is just that some people persistently have issues with photos of penises.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 21:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Well yeah, that's my point : "some people persistently have issues with photos of penises". And no, it's "not just". Next thing you're gonna put forth is that the nudists are cool and everyone else should consult with a shrink about their hangup ? Good luck with that. --Jerome Potts (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't find anything in the article offensive because it has an encyclopedic context. All of the images are designed to illustrate the text, and the amount of images has been pruned back in the past after comments that there were too many. If I wanted to see silly and offensive things with penises, I would go to Chatroulette.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 19:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
That's the "knot" or "bulbis glandis". It's there to lock the male's penis into the female during mating. When dogs mate, the male and female enter a "tie" which is when the knot swells up inside the female, locking him into her for a period of time anywhere from five minutes to a half hour or even more. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulbus_glandis—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.22.14 (talk • contribs) 21:21 UTC, 8 June 2010
I've been meaning to request permission for an pic to illustrate the bulbis article. There's a pretty good one here. If someone wants to do it for me (go here for the contact info) I'd be grateful. Raul654 (talk) 20:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a dog penis in commonwiki CENSORED! --UeArtemis (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
(Rolls eyes) I should have guessed we'd have a picture like that already handy. Thanks for pointing it out to me - I've added it to the article. Raul654 (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
It's worth noting that Penile sheath doesn't exist either. Raul654 (talk) 16:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I made the article about Pizzle in RuWiki. I would be glad of any information about the animal penes :) --UeArtemis (talk) 19:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll just leave this one here for you. Raul654 (talk) 05:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the answers ; the bulbus glandis is not mentioned anywhere in this article, its page not linked. ??? --Jerome Potts (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I've added it to the "see also" section. Raul654 (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Structure
You can make a translation from Russian article about the structure of animal penises, if you want.Юе Артеміс (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Mlpearcpowwow 00:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
new penis pic
You can use this pic of a normal-curved-penis at the topic "Normal variations" subtopic "curvature" - so all can see, that a curved penis is just normal (its the same pic on the german site "penisdeviation"). What's your opinion? - sorry, i don't know how to reduce the size of the pic:
File:Penisdeviation2.jpgBully2 (talk) 21:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
why do all these peoples pictures of ____ have barely any pubic hair? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.154.216 (talk) 21:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
beats me. here, try this one.File:HNI 0037.jpg—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob tedson (talk • contribs) 14:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
WTF!?!!?!?
oh my god the pic on the beginning of the page is almost an assault on the eyes! is that thing only ONE TESTICLE?!?! change it with something more normal
I don't know who you are, because you did not sign your post. However, the penis pic. is highly accurate, I have one myself, so I should know. Nothing untoward there.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 17:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Medical diagram
I believe this article should have medical diagrams only, the front picture is kind of an assault on the eyes. Medical diagrams only would be much more appropriate for this article. --Poohunter (talk) 05:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
This has been suggested many times, but the photos are no different from what would be found in a medical textbook.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 07:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
The picture is just the same in any schematic in a Penguin Dictionary.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
wow...
I'm tired of guys showing off their wares on this site. A diagram would work fine, but noooo... Gotta put it online. --DrStrangelove64 (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
It's the subject of the article, there are(real)pictures of vulva's in the vulva article, there are pictures of teeth in the teeth article. So unless you intend to hunt up a medically accurate sketch for every article related to human(or animal) bodies, then I think we should just leave it be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.69.154.100 (talk) 05:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't have an issue with the picture of a penis here. It's the other 9 that is the issue. Their is only two photos of the Vagina and ten of the Penis. Um, I think we can figure out what the penis looks like after a couple pictures.
I agree. Obviously, the article needs a picture, but this is the general article on animal penises, but all photos except one are of pale skinned human penises. We need to illustrate the variety in the animal kingdom a bit better. 145.53.23.37 (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Intro??
"The penis (plural penises, penes) is an external sexual organ of male humans. It is also more generally a biological feature of male animals including both vertebrates and invertebrates"
Erm, doesn't it make more sense for the general biological definition to take precedent over the fact that it's an organ present in humans? Just a suggestion. The vagina article, for example, doesn't even mention humans specifically in its introduction. I think the opening sentence sounds pretty funny, so I thought I'd point it out. I don't think any anatomy article regarding an organ nonspecific to humans starts like this. 208.75.23.66 (talk) 19:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Now it says "The Brooke Oaks" (penis). Someone should fix that.
Article splitting discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed. The result was Split. − Jhenderson777 00:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
The article seems a bit human-centric at the moment. This would be acceptable if the article's title were Human Penis; however, right now, the title is just Penis.
My proposal is to create a separate page (Human Penis) and move all the human penis-related stuff there. The main penis article would be about animal penises in general. See (feces/human feces) for a precedent. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Stonemason89, I couldn't agree more! The public should be aware that penises are not limited to only homo sapiens. The world would be far less diverse if only human reproduction was possible. It is critical, now more than ever as global biodiversity continues in a downward spiral, that we educate the public about all organisms on our beloved earth and their reproductive organs. Such ignorance and prejudice against animal genitalia will not be tolerated ANY longer.
Regards, a very concerned citizen.
I support the move. You might want to use a proper proposed move template though. --Koolabsol (talk) 08:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Not entirely sure how to do that, since I've never proposed a move before. Would you be willing to help me out? Stonemason89 (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Brilliant! Let me know if you need any help or money as I am an expert in the field and would be happy to lend my expertise. Me and my staff (no pun intended) would be delighted to hold a fundraiser as we do these kind of events all the time. Good luck on your endeavors!
I am willing to help you, though since the article in question is pretty important you will need to acquire more approvals before we can make the move. Asking for opinions at the village pump would be a great way to get started. There is also a process where you can request someone who has knowledge and expertise to help you with anything Wikipedia related. If you need help finding them I can help you but I want you to try and find them on your own. :) Also, Avc69. If you wish to contribute money then please donate to Wikipedia, [1]. If you wish the contribute expertise, then you are free to edit the article. Just make sure to follow the guidelines! Happy editing. --Koolabsol (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I was actually thinking about this before. This should definitely be done. RdCrestdBreegull (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Man, how important a simple typographical symbol like "/" can be. Imagine this topic without it. Drmies (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to be out of place but I disagree. Create another page about the human penis if you want, perhaps under male sexuality, but what I think is needed here is to add more about those of other animals. We need an article on just the penis and it needs to include human.
Rather than just move it ALL, select portions where there is no comparrison with other organisms and move that.Euc (talk) 07:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I disagree too. The article is only 40 kilobytes long. Add in whatever bits you think are missing, or are under represented (with refs, of course per WP:V), then, when the article gets too big (WP:SIZE), we can look at it and split off whatever sections cleave off best into sub-articles. See WP:SUMMARY. --Nigelj (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I agreed at first but then I saw the two comments above me and I agree with them. We just need to add what isn't there. I'd be happy to help so just let me know.--81.233.116.164 (talk) 08:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest information about animal penises be added to this article and then another discusion afterwards to see if it should be split. 86.13.252.106 (talk) 00:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Strong support - there are many different forms of penis and it would be great if the article could cover them all, rather than just our own. I will help with the split if I can. SmartSE (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Why hasn't this article been split up already, I understand it isn't a huge article but splitting it up will encourage more research to the individual subjects. Otherwise it'll get the same traffic and not expand or diversify at all.'''Aryeonos''' (talk) 04:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Homophobia
Are you morons really so homophobic that you can't tolerate pictures of penises in an article about them? Get over yourselves and bring back the cocks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.32.170.142 (talk) 18:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Please try to keep your discussion civil. I have no opinion on the recent merger, but the lack of images resulted from the recent merger with Human penis. (Also, note not all Wikipedians are male.) In any event, see Human penis. --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
It made sense to split Human Penis into a separate article after a number of requests to do this. Don't worry, the same photos are still in it.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 19:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
In domestic animals the penis is divides in to three parts:[4]
I'd like to edit that line, if possible, or have someone with more power edit it for all of us. Thanks!
Proposed edit: In domestic animals, the penis is divided in three parts:[4]
"The Icelandic Phallological Museum is devoted entirely to collecting penis specimens from all sorts of land and sea mammals."
Its just stuck in a section no relivance.(27.33.106.50)
The image in the infobox comes from this collection. Agree, though, that the sentence is somewhat out on a limb.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 10:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Penis size?
This article seems to have a focus on the sizes of various penises throughout the animal kingdom, rather than on the functions of penises themselves--as it stands now, the article should really be called "Penis size", or the information here should be moved to such an article. Perhaps more physiological and evolutionary information would be a plus? Zujua (talk) 06:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I added a cleanup tag for this reason, hopefully this article can be greatly expanded. (Pun not originally intended) Zujua (talk) 06:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
The average penis size is 5 to 7 inches
Images in this article
Before any more edit wars occur, please bear in mind that this is not an article about the human penis. This was split off into Human penis, as the hatnote says. There does not really need to be an image of the human penis in this article, so the edit warring is missing the point.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 16:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 22 February 2012
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
mention the average, it's 1-4 inches
70.49.81.20 (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Is this a joke? First you'd need a RS for that claim. Second you'd have to explain how the human race would survive...;-) -- Brangifer (talk) 04:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree a reliable source is necessary, and I would also point out that it is not the article for human penis or Human penis size. However 1-4 inches seems like a reasonable range for flaccid length of the human penis. --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Penis size and how to measure it is often debated. The few studies done all suffer from inconsistancies, either relying on self-reporting (and obvious over estimation), or measuring the maximum length a flaccid penis can be stretched (with the assumption this resembles erect size), or measuring just a flaccid one, or whether you measure the top of the penis or the bottom of the erect penis (along the bottom is about .5" longer on average due to curvature and position). So even "reliable" peer reviewed sources when they exist vary greatly in technique and thus results. One study I know about personally (I was a participant) just mailed a post card, asked you to hold the post card to yourself and mark with a pencil where the end was. This is more annonymous, but fraught with error. Finally, most guys know their own size varies by about half an inch or more depending on the quality of the erection. Robin Williams suggested in his standup (at least I think it was he) that you measure from the anus to the tip and back again for good measure. Not sure I even want to sign this response... But I am an MD so I'm only half full of it. Its a frequent concern among most men, so knowing a bit of this helps to allay fears associated with inadequacy.
"Clean up"
This page has one of those horrid "clean up" templates; the "specifics" given is "see discussion". I'm not seeing any discussion about "clean up" here. Is the tag necessary? Joefromrandb (talk) 12:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Having received no response, I've removed the tag. If it's absolutley necessary it can be returned, but I'd appreciate it if specific clean-up requests could be included with any re-tagging. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
wikilink
I believe the redirect at the top of the article is not easily found, especially for amateur readers of wikipedia. I have added a wikilink to the image which will make it easier to find the human penis article. Furthermore, i feel the mammal sub-section could do with an image anyway. Pass a Methodtalk 17:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree, some further adjustments is done to the article regarding this concern. Moscowsky (talk) 11:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't see the necessity to use a human penis photo in the mammal section. The redirection links are already clear enough. The leading photo of this page already includes several mammals. Usage of human penis picture will not help this article (nor the human penis article) but only bring edit wars. You can review the history archives of this talk page to see how many arguments there already are. Since December 2010, all the human penis features have already been moved to the independent article to reduce controversy, we should not let the problem back. --Pontmarcheur (talk) 08:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, with the leading link in bold font and a new link in mammal section, there is no need to use the human penis photo any more. It should be REMOVED. The photo has been add/remove/change/revert like revolving doors since last month, it's not helping at all. Moscowsky (talk) 08:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. The consensus has been (and still is) that this article doesn't need an image of the human penis, but it's certainly appropriate on the human penis article. It should be removed from this article. I notice that PassaMethod has tried this several times before and been reverted. They should know better than to try again. That's disruptive editing. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
It was agreed by consensus some time back to have Human penis as a separate article. Without any text in this article directly related to a human penis, the image is unnecessary and off topic.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 17:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion:
The article should have something to say about the human penis, even with the separate article.
The hatnote should not be in bold. I don't think there is any basis for that in the style guidelines.
A picture of a human penis is entirely appropriate and I don't understand why there should be any controversy.--Taylornate (talk) 01:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
As a kind of mammal, human already enjoyed enough privileges in this article (which is a summary of penis for all species). For the controversies, they're just there. You can check the talk archives to see what happened in the past. The adding of human penis photo is against consensus and will bring edit wars with no doubt. You can find the latest war in history page. Moscowsky-talk- 02:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Can you summarize? I don't think it's fair to expect people to sift through ten pages of archives. I'm annoyed that the FAQ at the top of this page acknowledges this is a frequent topic of discussion but doesn't actually give any helpful information.--Taylornate (talk) 03:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Why me? em one of the annoyed people too (lol). Anyone who really wants to add the human penis photo may do the homework and push this topic further though. Moscowsky-talk- 03:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
The burden isn't yours personally, but it also doesn't belong to the side you disagree with. I think the burden lies with those who think it is not ok to add a picture of a penis to an article titled penis.--Taylornate (talk) 10:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think so. The one who wants to change should provide legitimate reasons first, currently I don't see any good reasons but only expression of personal feeling. Moscowsky-talk- 12:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Leading photo ambiguous
Today by chance I noticed that the leading photo of this article is actually ambiguous, it seems to be a small collection of Whale's penis, not "from different species". Per the description on the file page, it's probably from Minke whale. Is there any biological expert who can clarify the information? Or maybe someone can go to Icelandic Phallological Museum and find out? Moscowsky-talk- 11:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The description of the image is changed from "penises from different species" to "non-human penises" as there is no fact supporting the previous description. Moscowsky-talk- 07:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I mailed to the Icelandic Phallological Museum the day before yesterday with questions from this topic, it is very nice that the curator of the museum, Mr. Hjortur Gisli Sigurdsson replied my mail with clear answer: "You are correct in assuming that the photo you refer to is from Minke whale ( Balaenoptera acutorostrata )". This should be the most credible answer. Related information on the articles is updated now. Moscowsky-talk- 01:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, that comes under WP:OR, but I think we can like with that, unless someone challenges it, which would seem rather pointless. Thanks for checking. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
'Domesticated mammals' vs 'Other mammals'
What? Has biology suddenly been rewritten, and the classification revised? Why the heck are we making an arbitrary distinction like this in the article - and note that it puts Homo sapiens firmly in the non-domesticated category. While I can see the attractions of such a classificatory scheme, I'm not sure that it is entirely appropriate. Mammals are mammals, and I don't think that there is much evidence that the males of domesticated species have any particular notability regarding their 'intromittent organs' that deserves separate treatment from the rest of us mammalian males. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I fixed this by removing the unnecessary "domesticated" headers. Moscowsky-talk- 07:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
'intromittent organ'
The lede tells us that the penis "is a reproductive, intromittent organ that additionally serves as the urinal duct in placental mammals". Is there any logical reason why it shouldn't actually tell the reader what 'intromittent organ' means, rather than expecting them to click on a Wikilink to find out? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
For me the current description is OK. It's impossible to explain everything to details for one term. If you have better idea to express the term please feel free to suggest. Moscowsky-talk- 07:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
That it is impossible to explain everything is no justification for not explaining anything. I have revised the lede to at least give some clarification. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I think JohnRichfield's recent expansion of the lede [2] is a real step forward. —MistyMorn (talk) 09:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
For kind comment, much thanks. JonRichfield (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Add a live mammal's penis photo in the "Mammals" section
Maybe a live mammal's penis photo can be added into the "Mammals" section. Currently there seems only a photo of five unidentified specimens at the top, and a black-white insect photo at the bottom, isn't this a little weird? Moscowsky-talk- 08:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. People who don't read text might think this is page about marine animals at first glance. --PontMarcheur(talk) 08:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I suggest to use the photo on the right, it's from an elephant. Moscowsky-talk- 11:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
There are more good examples on the German penis page which I would suggest adding - at the moment is sadly lacking in pictures - as though had been censored or something.93.96.148.42 (talk) 11:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Photo added as there is no objection. Moscowsky-talk- 03:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Erm, is a museum piece of bottled-up, pickled penises really the most appropriate leading illustration of the topic? —MistyMorn (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
No, it isn't. As an illustration it is practically useless. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Currently there're few proper photos on Commons. Most of them look either unclear or too "fearsome". Moscowsky-talk- 23:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Please explain what is meant by "too "fearsome"". The image of a flacid human penis would seem far better than pickled whale penes- which look a little scary to me. It quite clearly says at the top of this page that wikipedia is not censored, and that those who wish to view a censored version can configure their browser to do so.
It's already explained very clearly in above sections about why the human penis photo is not used, it had reached consensus in the past. There is no necessity to show human organ explicitly in both human penis page and penis page; while there isn't many good non-human penis photos. Currently we have a marine mammal, a terrestrial mammal, an insect, I think it's abundant for the page. Moscowsky-talk- 10:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
It is NOT explained clearly- I do not understand it, and from the above others do not understand it -please summarise why a human penis should not be if good images of other penes are not available. The more relevant images, the better an article looks, and the more informative it is. There are over an 100 fotos available on commons, so would be quite easy to use a different one from those on human penis - for example this one, which also shows one of the primary functions of a penis: Penis of a man urinating.[ (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Sigh... In the red corner, museum pieces only, in the blue corner, max astonishment. I thought images on Wikipedia were intended to illustrate pertinently the encyclopedic content of the articles. —MistyMorn (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
MistyMorn I don't understand your contribution. Do you think this image pertinently illustrates the encyclopedic content of the penis article?
I would like to add that urination is currently only mentioned in the lede - surely it is important enough to be mentioned in the body text.93.96.148.42 (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I would take the suggestions of this 'contributor' more seriously were it not for their recent contribution history. [3] Might I suggest that you'd make a better case if you didn't make a habit of spamming pages with pictures of people urinating? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Note - I have removed the image. I'm sure most of us are already familiar with what a man taking a leak looks like. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I added 2 photos of a man and a woman urinating to Urination and Talk:Urination- if that is spamming, please explain what constructive editing consists of. Please also explain why you removed the image I suggested adding from this discussion - the fact that we know what a man taking a leak looks like looks like does not seem like a good reason for removing the illustration of a urinating penis I suggested adding, nor is it an argument against using this image (which does not show a man) in the article. Are you suggesting illustrations should be limited to the exotic or unusual? I am restoring the image, so people can see exactly which live mammal's penis photo I suggest adding: 93.96.148.42
I would like to request that WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE be given due attention, in particular the following passages -
Images are primarily meant to inform readers by providing visual information. Consequently, images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, even if they are not provably authentic images. For example, a photograph of a trompe-l'œil painting of a cupcake may be an acceptable image for Cupcake, but a real cupcake that has been decorated to look like something else entirely is less appropriate. Similarly, an image of an unidentified cell under a light microscope might be useful on multiple articles, so long as there are no visible differences between the cell in the image and the typical appearance of the cell being illustrated.
Articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material near relevant text. If the article is about a general subject for which a large number of good quality images are available, (e.g., Running), editors are encouraged to seek a reasonable level of variety in the age, gender, and race of any people depicted. Adding multiple images with very similar content is less useful. For example, three formal portraits of a general wearing his military uniform may be excessive; substituting two of the portraits with a map of a battle and a picture of its aftermath may provide more information to readers. You should always be watchful not to overwhelm an article with images by adding more just because you can.
And once again, I am removing the image. It is totally unnecessary - if you insist on arguing for the image, provide a link, rather than gratuitously inserting controversial material. And I'd advise taking a little time to contemplate whether your actions at the Phallus article, when taken in to consideration with the rest of your recent contributions, might lead more people to suspect that you are motivated by more than a concern for the encyclopaedia. If you want a rational discussion of such issues, this isn't the way to go about it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I have presented reasons for my edits. You refuse to engage in rational discussion. You have not given one reason why this image should not be included,other than that you are familiar with the subject matter, and insist on removing it from the talk page. I added a foto of a Phallus to the article that had been removed without discussion. You removed it without explanation. I fail to understand your logic regarding concern for the encyclopedia- having discovered a defect, it is natural to want to correct it.93.96.148.42 (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should this article mention the human penis, or should it just link to Human penis and make no reference to it at all?93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Obviously, yes. It seems a statistical certainty that the majority of those reading the article will be human, and that a significant proportion will possess one. Or is anyone suggesting that there is a remotely-rational reason to ignore this fact? For the life of me, I can't think of one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes. You ought to be able to stick it in anywhere you want.JSR (talk) 09:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't quite catch this discussion. So your suggestion is: When user searches "penis", the default article should be human penis instead of penis, because most of the readers only want to see the human organ article instead of anything else? --PontMarcheur(talk) 09:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The consensus was to have Human penis as a separate article. If mentioned here, it should be only briefly and with a link to the article Human penis.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 09:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Thereby giving the editorial impression that man is somehow separate from the animal kingdom? And I thought WP was an encyclopedia. Hmmm... —MistyMorn (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
If that was the consensus, then this RfC seems to be suggesting that the consensus should be ignored, without explaining why. Can someone please explain, for the benefit of those participating in the RfC, what the heck this is all about? What concrete changes to article content are being proposed? What are the arguments for such changes? And what are the arguments against? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no clear change proposal in this conversation at all. All the words here seem totally redundant and a waste of time. If anyone wants to change something, please say it straightly. --PontMarcheur(talk) 01:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Yup. As far as I can see, the article mentions the Human penis in two places: in the strangely-named 'other mammals' section, the relative penile size of the great ape/human species is discussed - as an example of how varied this can be, even in closely-related animals. I can't see anything remotely objectionable to this - and the reasons for the variation are a significant issue of debate amongst primatologists. Well worth inclusion in my opinion. The same section also discusses the shape of the human penis in terms of sperm competition - again of scientific significance. I see no reason whatsoever to remove this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, i also think the knowledge of this article seems not quite comprehensive. Maybe you can create a new section and list all the shortages you believe so everyone concerned can discuss further. --PontMarcheur(talk) 01:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Previously the human penis article doesn't exist, everything is integrated into the penis article. During early 2010, creation of a separate human penis page is proposed and agreed after several months' publicity. The content of human penis is moved from penis to human penis on Dec 8, 2010. On the penis page, striking links were added to navigate users to the human organ page if they want. Hope this answers the original question "Does the human penis belong in this article". --PontMarcheur(talk) 01:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment:. I would like to comment here but my mother won't let me.
I think there should be a short specific section on the human penis,- rather than just a link to it.93.96.148.42 (talk) 11:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, as noted above. However, also as noted above, a clear request for what is proposed would be helpful. If it's going to be mentioned on this page, I suggest a mention in the same way that the penis of other vertebrates is mentioned, ideally focusing on any unique aspect of the human penis. As an aside to my comment here, I believe the links to the Human penis article are sufficient as they stand and don't believe that additional links would be required. I hope this comment, sans childish attempts at humor is helpful. VertiumWhen all is saidand done 18:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
As per usual, ie Wikipedia:Summary style? I would suggest an infobox broadly along the lines of Testicle, which seems to me genuinely informative. I agree with 93.96 that we do need a brief section on the human penis, per summary style. FYI, I'm not ashamed of having retained a sense of humour from my schooldays [4]. —MistyMorn (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, per AndyTheGrump :) In fact I was surprised that it is left out from the article so far (or may be somebody censored it lately). --DBigXray 12:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes I would prefer to see the single paragraph at the end of the mammal section extended to a short section, say three - four paragraphs, with a "for further information" link at top IdreamofJeanie (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes Look, it is terribly simple. The article is about penes. You no lika da penis, you no reada da article. You lika da animal penis but no lika da human penis,you read wit da eye shut in case the word "human" appears somewhere because some salacious saboteur sneaked it in (ooooo!). This is Wikipedia. It is (supposed to be) an encyclopaedia. That means that it is supposed to contain information for people who seek information; it is not supposed to omit information for people who do not seek information, nor even avoid putting information in places intended for information, but where people who might not want information might look for no information. If information is "encyclopedic" and relevant and not OR and all that stupid stuff, in it goes as appropriate. If it appears in another article as well (such as "Human penis, for delicate spirits who never speculated on any such obscene possibility) it gets a shorter mention as appropriateand also gets linked as appropriate. What the bleep are people complaining about? The article is labelled "Penis" isn't it? Not "Sweet little Willie", right??? Has someone repealed the realities of biology without telling me or something? 'Nuff said? JonRichfield (talk) 09:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
As a kind of mammal, i don't think there is anything special to say about human here (based on the facts that the human penis link is already showed at the leading position of both the whole article and its mammal section, which can redirect the reader to the very detailed human penis article easily), if anybody has good idea, why don't you start a new section, saying straightly what text you can add, instead of complaining with garish languages which helps nothing? Moscowsky-talk- 10:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
You could make the same comment about any other species equally easily, leaving us with nothing to say about any penis. There is a strange tendency among some editors to think that if an article is about (say) leaves, then you need a picture of a leaf, but must not have a picture of a second leaf, because, as they will unanswerably point out, a leaf is a leaf and we must not clutter articles, must we? If a biologist were to read an article however, s/he would understand that, while you cannot show all leaves (or penes), there are some things that one can say about some leaves (or penes) that you cannot say about some other leaves (or penes), and that it accordingly can be worth illustrating or saying something or about each, as long as one does so constructively, illustratively or informatively. Bulk duplication of material in other articles is of course not to be tolerated, let alone encouraged, and links are to be used instead, but that does not mean that the links should not be supplemented with text appropriate in context. Human penes are mammalian? Sure. Mammalian penes are to be included in the article? Definitely, a few anyway. Even if they are human? Certainly; on exactly the same basis as any other penes. We do not avoid naming any other penis (say kangaroo) just because they appear in other articles. There is a little matter of coherence and relevance. The reasons for mentioning human penes in this article have nothing to do with the reasons for including them in another article. Ask around about some abstruse topics like comparative biology. If you can find some text that is not too unhelpfully garish, you might profit. Good luck! JonRichfield (talk) 09:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
So having a page entitled Human penis is a good reason to exclude human biology here? And if we had, say, a Bifurcated penis page, would that sanction a further Penis cut? Since when do WP guidelines recommend POV forking over summary style? The relevant guideline is clear: Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others.—MistyMorn (talk) 10:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes This article is currently extremely short. Consensus seems to be in favour. There is plenty of room for human penes to be briefly covered, with an illustration. 93.96.148.42 (talk) 18:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes and Speedy Close, this is just a silly waste of time RFC. Obviously it should mention it, and IMO it should have a picture of it. — raekyt 13:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
why not just a diagram?
more detail, and we wouldnt have complaining, so why just put a diagram that shows all the parts without being graphic?184.98.114.65 (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Is there any reason for not also having a really good anatomical drawing/diagram? —Misty(MORN) 10:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Anatomical diagram is only suitable for organ of a specified creature which has same structure, this page is shared by various species including some insects, so it's not realistic to show a common diagram (even among mammals). Moscowsky-talk- 10:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I had not seen this request. I have no objection to including as many diagrams as might be useful, though my mind boggles at the idea of a diagram not being errr... graphic??? Have I misunderstood? Weeeelll... never mind. However, firstly, it would take a number of diagrams because as Moscowsky points out, there is quite a wide range of penile structures, many of them not being homologous, and anyway, good diagrams are not always available on demand for WP. The basic requirement IMO is that whatever we present, whether diagram or photo, whether graphic or whatever the alternative might be, it must add value to the relevant part of the text, which in turn must relevantly add value to the article. Simple, no? Let whomever has suitable diagrams propose them along with the rest of the graphics. If we like them, no problem. JonRichfield (talk) 16:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Possible solution to end the edit warring
Why don't we just solve the problem with edit warring here by creating a small gallery, as I did some years ago here, with images of several types of penises, including human? Or do we take some sort of delight in fighting over dicks?! A gallery with thumbnail images would end the matter once and for all. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
It would be good to select images to illustrate features described in the article - ie real illustration! —MistyMorn (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
For example, s-shaped (bull etc), barbed (cat), bifurcated (kangaroo), echidna? I see we already have a good hermaphrodite image of snails. —MistyMorn (talk) 10:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
And functions, such as erection, ejaculation, and urination.93.96.148.42 (talk) 10:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
No, wikilinks are good enough. Staying on-topic is important. We don't go in depth on every detail when we have main articles dealing with those functions. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes - support.
Imo, we could usefully illustrate a variety of animals, as described in the text (as already started with the elephant and bean weevil illustrations), accompanied perhaps by a detailed anatomical drawing. My 2c... I'd just like to see this page properly encyclopedic rather than an evident casualty of edit warring. —MistyMorn (talk) 18:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Let's start by adding what we find to this gallery, and then decide which ones to keep. When it looks good, we add it. Here are some of your suggestions: "s-shaped (bull etc), barbed (cat), bifurcated (kangaroo), echidna? I see we already have a good hermaphrodite image of snails." -- Brangifer (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
And lets ditch the bottled whale penes - what exactly do they add to the article?93.96.148.42 (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I am against any compromise about limiting the constructive content of articles, the more so in the light of the availability of facilities like NOSEE, but I could go with BR's idea as long as it is explicitly seen as a pragmatic tool for dealing with visitors who insist on howling about material beyond their intellectual and moral capacities, and no part of their moral or procedural right to dictate content. This said, I did say constructive (might as well add "encyclopedic" while I am at it). It does not imply that just because something might offend someone, it must be encyclopedic; IMO those Minke penes are uninformative, unattractive, and unsuitably prepared as biological specimens. I too had looked at them and wondered whether to delete them. If anyone decides to do so I would not gripe. I don't offhand remember having penile pics in my own collection, but if I find something useful I would add it to the gallery. (The range of human penes on WM Commons is startling, most of them being useless repetition of course.) JonRichfield (talk) 04:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Without finding a better one, people are already talking about removing the only qualified marine mammal photo just because it's specimen, how dramatic it is. If someone finds a really better non-human photo to put in the leading position, pls point it out for discussion; then maybe the current whale photo can be shifted to mammal section. I strongly against the removal of the whale photo unless there is a better marine mammal photo for replacement. Moscowsky-talk- 04:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
As I originally stated, the gallery should also include a decent human image. No favoritism or exclusiveness here. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I go along with the recent remarks. The source BR mentions has some excellent prospects. For a start I vote for:
Chef Gruppe Mantelpaviane 2011 Tiergarten Worms.JPG
As for the whale penes, the dead specimens are not much good. I have seen fine specimens of orca penes on TV on a nature program (maybe Nat geo or discovery?) so it seems likely that stills might be available... Hmmm... Just had a thought. I checked out google under whale penis and found a site that has dozes of animal penes, some of them quite good, some of them live whales of various species, and if you have a look you may see why I think that those preserved and mounted specimens are pretty useless. try [5] The only problem is now to get some with no copyright problems. JonRichfield (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Surely it will be helpful if a good photo of live whale's penis can be uploaded to Commons. About the gallery, I think it must only include representative photos (having obviously different appearance between each other), else the collection will be flooded with unnecessary photos. Also, photo gallery may open a window for people who are obsessed to upload low-quality bad-taste photos (especially photos about human organ), so I'm not sure if the gallery can really "end the edit warring". Moscowsky-talk- 00:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
What you say is reasonable; the problem is not the shortage of photos. but getting the copyright. As for the problem of unacceptable pictures in the gallery, it can best be handled by photos only being accepted when the caption is appropriate and fits or adds to the sense of the article text. Something should be worth saying about each picture, apart from "gee-whizz!" For example, cats' ovulation is largely dependent on the stimulus of mating, and this is to some extent related to the tubercles on the penis; large, unwieldy animals like horses and elephants have disproportionately large penes that also are manoeuverable, because otherwise they could never reach and find the vagina, that giraffe penis is surprisingly small, though the horse penis is about what you would expect, and the same applies to bulls. I don't know about edit warring, because every topic involving stuff that makes the guttersnipes giggle, whether sexual or lavatorial, is an irresistible bait for both the vandals and the bowdlers, but if a few established editors keep the page on their watchlists and the article is semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed editors can make changes, the problems should be reasonably manageable. Incidentally, I checked on Wikimedia commons and here are a few more proposals:
Mallard with visible pseudo-penis.jpg . Also Circumcised penis - Flacid and Erect - High Res2.jpg plus HQ SAM CFE2.jpg (fair representations of human penes) Other choices are possible, and there are possibly interesting clinical specimens in the category, but those I leave to others to select or reject.JonRichfield (talk) 13:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Some photos in this gallery are not close-up view, like the giraffe, horse, and baboon. Those photos should be either cropped or renewed. Moscowsky-talk- 09:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm, I feel there's room for providing both detail and context (perhaps, depending on the quality of the original, even using the same photograph). —Misty(MORN) 10:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think so. Take the giraffe as example, almost nothing about penis is visible in the thumbnail. It's not practical to zoom some photos to a very big size, else the page layout will be a mess. All the gallery photos should have similar thumbnail size. Moscowsky-talk- 10:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Sure. My tentative suggestion was to use adjacent photos (he horse photo, for instance, gives a sense of proportion). —Misty(MORN) 10:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Why is it relevant whether there is detail in the thumbnail? It has no relevance to the layout. Their whole point is that you can supply lots of thumbnails without messing up the article layout. Readers can either be satisfied with the thumbnail, or uninterested in it, or wish to expand for detail at a single click or for higher detail two clicks. The giraffe is a fine example: "Oooh look! giraffes courting! What next?" Or: "Hmm... giraffes courting! Let's take a closer look... Hmmm... surprisingly short penis for such a large mammal with such a morphology..." In case you have not looked, the detail is quite useful in the full-sized picture. And so on. JonRichfield (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Agree. Well said! Yes, the giraffes do make a fine illustration, imo. —MistyMORN 16:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
So why not add some to the article?87.194.46.83 (talk) 05:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Arbitrary wee break
Yes - such as the image above to illustrate urination - which currently does not feature in the article.93.96.148.42 (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
A lot of the content of the page is, at least, beyond nursery school level. —MistyMorn (talk) 20:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I can't understand your grammar MistyMorn. Please rephrase.93.96.148.42 (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I have better things to do than dialogue with you. —MistyMorn (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Include Photograph of a Human Penis, and remove or downgrade bottled penes foto.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closing the RFC as no consensus - there is a slight leaning towards oppose, but not enough for consensus. Even if the oppose was the majority, it would result in no material changes to the page. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
At the moment this articles lead picture is a foto of whale's penes in glass bottles. I think it should be of a human penis, or at any rate a living penis, and a human penis photo included. This is opposed on the grounds that photographs of real penes in the Penis article would be obscene and WP:UNDUE, and that there is a separate article human penis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.46.83 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 23 October 2012
I can't honestly see why that would be necessary. The human penis already has its own article, and it doesn't need to feature on penis. Just WP:COMMONSENSE in my opinion. Coppaar (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
There was a consensus to have Human penis as a separate article. Animals besides humans have penises as well.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 06:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Yah, I agree ianmacm. Better to keep it non-species specific. See leg for example. LK (talk) 04:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Support The human penis should be on this page. Last month Penis received >8000/views/day [6], where Human penis receives 6000/views/day or there about[7]. It's page ratings are fairly low in compassion to Human penis for being objective/complete. Everyone reading this page is going to be human, so it's natural that many of them are coming to Penis for information about the human organ, not a whale's. It should be presented. What are the arguments against, aside from not wanting to see a male sex organ? — raekyt 03:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't need to remind you that this is an encyclopedia, and its content is not determined by what people expect, hope, or want to see. Many people would like to see more non-free images on Wikipedia that are excluded because there are certain things that trump popular opinion, and one of those things is common sense. It is because there is an entire article devoted to the human penis that it is unnecessary for a picture to be included here. If they come to Penis looking for a Human Penis, all they have to do is click a link at the top of the page. Since wikipedia already has readily available pictures of human penises there, the Penis article can have pictures of other penises. Adding human penis would either crowd the article or remove other files, so it's neither due nor ideal.
Frankly, it seems like the user who brought this up was just disgusted by the whale penises, not that that's particularly relevant or possible to prove. In any case, users who want to see a human penis can do so very easily, and adding them here isn't WP:UNDUE exactly, because human penises are still important, but I think the best option is to leave room for other species here, since human penises have their own article. Coppaar (talk) 03:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Equally frankly, and speaking as a biologist who regards a penis or other sex-and-excretion-related objects with roughly as much interest as any other anatomical-and-physiological feature, I am definitely disgusted with those whale penes. They are uninformative, of low quality, and out of proportion. We are supposed to be supplying informative (and with any luck, interesting and relevant) material. As specimens the physical organs may for all I can tell be potentially useful for dissection purposes, but, as I have said elsewhere on this page, the picture is useless in this article as it stands. I have been looking around and the available pictures of animal penes are fewer and usually of lower quality than those of human penes, which certainly says something about some things, and maybe less about others, but is not relevant to us here and now. JonRichfield (talk) 09:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
There being an article dedicated to human penises seems to me to be an argument against the necessity of including it here. If people come here looking for the article on Human penises, then they are reading the wrong article and they should be directed to the correct one. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Partial support and Comment on reservations As stated in my foregoing rant(s), I suggest and urge that the lede picture should preferably be of an animal penis because of the existence of the human penis article (no other reason, but it is a strong reason, methinks). It does however make sense to have at least one usefully representative human penis in usefully representative position(s) in this article as well. For the lede I vote for the giraffe picture, in which the penis is shown in very adequate detail and in at least one very appropriate context. It also is a nice picture, which does no harm in a lede. Next choice: the baboon, but that has little functional relevance. The dog and elephant pics are less in context; they are neither of much anatomical value nor especially enlightening. Some pics of the other species are OK technically, but too specialised to be representative; they might be shown in paragraphs dealing with specialisations, rather than in the lede. All this is subject to anyone else coming up with some really great alternative picture that is properly and legally uploaded to Wiki commons etc. JonRichfield (talk) 09:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Opppose: Proposer notes reasons against his view, but the only basis for his proposal is "I think it should be of a human penis." Why? I think it should be a penis sculpture made out of butter[8], shall I start a new section for that discussion?--Milowent • hasspoken 16:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Partial support images of bottled penises are useless in terms of informativeness. How about making a collage of representative penises, one per a reasonably large taxon, similarly to famous persons' collages in ethnicity articles, such as French people? Staszek Lem (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
We could have a collage of famous persons' penises. Formerip (talk) 22:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
RfC response: oppose It's pointless to try and decide something when there is no reason given for why it should be included and no proposed image. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep lede picture as it is but put a human penis picture somewhere below in the article, as a compromise, so we can end this silliness. --Cyclopiatalk 02:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Oppose We do not rework articles in order to reduce misguided commentary. If somone has an actual proposal (a link to an image with some proposed wording), they should make it. Anyone with access to Google has a very large sample of penis images to choose from, so there is no particular value in showing yet another familiar image here. By contrast, general readers will not be so familiar with the images currently in the article—an article about the general topic. There are five links to human penis in the article (including one at the very start), so there is no need to put more images here. Johnuniq (talk) 04:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. No particular objection to pictures of human penises but, as others have noted above, a change cannot be supported when no actual picture has been proposed and no rationale for the change has been given. Formerip (talk) 22:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Abstention. I don't really care what kind of penis is depicted. However, showing bottled penes implies avoidance of depicting a real penis on an living mammal. So - that's what I favor for: Including a photo of a living penis. Jesus Presley (talk) 03:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment. I support changing the lede image to a collage to show the variation in penises among different species (which could include a human penis). In regards to the further use of images in the article I think it should focus on different states and functionality of a penis i.e. flaccid, erect, urinating, ejaculation etc. Betty Logan (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Weak Oppose As has been said above, I have no real problem with a picture of a human penis, but with one already in the lead of the human penis article, leading with another species (with a human down lower, in context) seems to be due weight. BTW, collages (as in Bird) causes problems for small-format devices. -- Scray (talk) 01:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Abstention. What [[User:|Jesus Presley]] said. We need a photo of a living penis in the lede. --Nigelj (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Comment I don't know why anyone would call that an abstention, but I agree with the need for a picture of a functional, and preferably living, penis in the lede. Back to the giraffe, say I. It is functional, fully in context, and inoffensive as well. JonRichfield (talk) 08:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Look folks, how long is this paralysis by RFC going to (you should excuse the expression in context) drag on? If it were not nominally under discussion I should long ago have installed the giraffe picture boldly. But nothing is being discussed that has not been chewed to rags. This reflects very badly on somebody or something. If we were a committee designing a horse the camel would long since have died of old age. I feel my boldness growing, so how about it? JonRichfield (talk) 08:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Arbitrary break
This RFC is achieving very little. Please suggest a specific image for the infobox, and see if a consensus can be found to use it.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 08:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest the RFC be closed as no-consensus, and to simply enable this stale issue to be left up to a bold editor to change the page itself. If we find an edit war (hopefully not) we can readdress the rfc... Your thoughts? Tiggerjay (talk) 07:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Looks like consensus leans slightly more on Oppose. I have no strong views on either side (just see my comment there, heh), but that's what it looks like. --Cyclopiatalk 16:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, if anything slightly towards oppose, but certainly not a consensus. And given that the overall sentiment of the 'weak oppose' would basically leave the article unchanged, we can probably simply leave as is. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not done: Spitfire19 (Talk) 22:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Agree (delisting). Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 21:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment:.
Dog, erect
Hamadryas baboon, erect
Snails are hermaphrodites.jpg)
