Talk:Toilet paper orientation/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Cats

"Levity" isn't a valid reason for content...WP:UNDUE is just the beginning there. We are commanded to be on-topic in general, and especially for image-use. There is something on-topic to be said about cats and toilet paper (one of the items in the Arguments section), but as SchuminWeb says, "the orientation is not evident, and the roll is pretty shredded." The whole point of this article is orientation, so if there's no evidence what the orientation is or how the cats are behaving in relation to it, it's off-topic. DMacks (talk) 05:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

If levity isn't a valid reason for content then this entire article should be flushed. Lovetinkle (talk) 05:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Levity isn't a valid reason, but WP:N is the standard, and this article meets it. Just because it's funny doesn't mean it doesn't get actual WP:RS coverage. But the funny is incidental. DMacks (talk) 05:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. The photo may have an actual encyclopedic use, but just not for this topic. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

EngineeringDegree.net infographic

I'm removing this link for the following reasons:

• It lacks citations for most of its content, but it's pretty clear that it's based on this article. So unlike the other link, it doesn't add anything.
• It mis-represents individuals' personal opinions as "scientific data".
• The item in the bottom right, "Wikipedia: The discussion page for the article on 'Toilet Paper Orientation' is 2x longer than that for the Iraq War" is false. Honestly, this just makes me angry. I don't see why we should endorse their nonsense.

Melchoir (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Japan

This article lacks vital information: In Japan, all public places use "over", because of toilegami. Public or office toilets are usually cleaned several times per day by employees whose tasks include folding the next sheet of paper, usually in a triangle shape. Nicolas1981 (talk) 07:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Noted preferences

When looking at "noted preferences", Ann Landers appears BOTH in "over" and "under". Please change this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.130.77.248 (talk) 10:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Wait, this ISN'T satire?

This is the most well-researched, community-uniting, excellently-edited article I have seen on Wikipedia and I am 100% baffled as to why it exists! This is an amazingly well-done page about ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. There's even a POV complaint that was addressed! POV-pushing on hygiene products! No one in this talk page looks to have even thought once about why the article itself exists. I ... love you guys if you can make this massive article around something so indifferent, trivial, and pointless as to the orientation of bathroom tissue. Maybe this is in-fact satire. I'd venture to say I'm in the presence of greatness here. Teafico (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Well said. This article is fabulous. I wish there were more, super well cited, articles about nothing on wikipedia. Seriously. —Noah (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm honestly amazed that so many references could be found for this article. There are articles I have worked one where I would have been ecstatic to have found even a tenth of the ones quoted here. (And if you don't like this fact, you should take it up with the people who have produced the research, not Wikipedia.) -- llywrch (talk) 04:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Wow

What a great way to make sure Wikipedia remains respectable and serious.PacificBoy 01:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• This seems to be more of an exercise in thwarting Notability guidelines and it really shows the immaturity of Wikipedia editors. It reminds me of 300-page iPhone bill article--another waste of effort when basic scientific articles are woefully undeveloped. And it's not even a perfectly done article. It's hopelessly systemically biased towards a US view, which Wikipedia has been fighting against in articles more and more. And anyone with half a brain would prefer 'over', the only real argument the unders have is "aesthetic appeal"! 72.198.211.245 (talk) 08:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Haha, you guys should start to learn German and join the German wikipedia. This article wouldn't have survived it's first day there. Admins were on an article-deleting rampage for years because of "lack of relevance" and "keeping wikipedia respectable". Which put off a great many new contributors. So, chill. I think the fact that this article exists and can exist without doing the slightest harm to wikipedia's reputation is great. 77.188.87.71 (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

People come to Wikipedia for all kinds of reasons. Many people start by vandalizing, then go on to edit articles on pop culture, then they may edit all kinds of articles. Wikipedia has a response to welcome any kind of contributor, and this article demonstrates that. Wikipedia can be entertaining or informative and this article is both. German Wikipedia has a different philosophy but I think it would be great if parts of this article were translated into German so that they could share in this. This is a great article which meets Wikipedia's high standards for sourcing. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Considering you are dumb enough to say anyone with half a brain would prefer over it proves this article is noteworthy. I prefer under because it rolls easier that way for me, and I certainly do not lack half a brain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.228.108.125 (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Ann Kanders

Anybody else notice she advocates BOTH ways? Go4thAndDie (talk) 02:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Why

Why does this even need to exist? I see far more relevant articles/subjects being deleted by Wikipedia all the time...and yet we have a considerably large article dedicated to this trash. You people are awful. Just terrible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.35.112.90 (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). -mattbuck (Talk) 01:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Asymmetry

I have waited a long time to find a place where I could post this without it being deleted as original research. How many of us have agonised when the two sheets do not synchronise, and cannot be torn together? The solution - seperate the two layers, and wind the upper layer one turn back. The perforations will then coincide; this applies whichever orientation of the toilet roll is chosen, but is easier to impliment with an "over" configuration. This posting is true, and is at least as significant as the article itself; and possibly more useful!--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

This is true. I have independently made the same discovery. 59.167.157.158 (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Respect

I express profound respect to the people who produced such an article. It is amazing, to remarkable standards, that people out there can find and enter so much information ... over the subject of the position of a toilet paper. Wikipedia, your community makes me proud and I leave with the joy and satisfaction of a man who has been enlightened of information of the position of toilet paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.141.199.21 (talk) 13:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Globalize

I feel as though the article focuses far too much on references from the US and Canada. It should probably be partially re-written to include a more general, worldwide point of view. I would have suggested just translating existing content from other languages, but quite astoundingly, the relevant section on the Swedish Wikipedia and the Danish article both exclusively refer to American preferences. Any thoughts?--Ejl389 (talk) 03:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Americans are obsessed with toilets, even though they won't call them that? Oh, sorry, you meant thoughts about the article! Yes, the article suffers from our usual systemic bias. Anything you can add from other locations would be great. HiLo48 (talk) 04:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe this is a North American thing. I don't live there, and I've never heard anyone in my parts of the world discuss this topic. I'm a big believer in giving Wikipedia articles a global point of view, but in this case, for the first time, I'm willing to consider that globalising it would be wrong. Instead, maybe the intro should say that's it's something that gets discussed in American media and colleges. It would be wrong to strain to find a few slim non-American references and then claim that people discuss this topic worldwide. Gronky (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, the issue definitely exists in Australia. It's on a par with men leaving the seat up in importance. But I can't recall seeing much in writing about it. HiLo48 (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so the intro should say it's a hot topic in USA, Canada, and Australia (when references are found for the latter). But in any case, there's no justification to say it's a hot topic the world over. Do people in Australia really care? Do cohabitants make arguments for and against? Or did the question just blow in via television and get used as filler on the mass media during a few slow news days? I think the article already over dramatises the topic. Gronky (talk) 09:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? HiLo48 (talk) 11:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Now I don't know if you're kidding. Toilet paper orientation is a non topic. There is no article for cutting sandwiches into squares vs. triangles or for climbing staircases two steps at a time. The only thing that could justify its existence is the mass media's occasional need for filler, and a few authors or university types that know this and make comments so that they can get cited during said filler. I'm not going to propose a deletion, but I will point out that this is not a hot topic everywhere (maybe it's not a actually real topic anywhere, but that's for another day). Gronky (talk) 10:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The reality is that some people become rather obsessive about things to do with hygiene and sanitation, and things that aren't so easily spoken about in general, polite conversation, like what one does when one goes to the toilet. This is going to happen more in first world countries than elsewhere. It's emphasised by the fact that Americans can't even bring themselves to calling the place a toilet. They use the confusing word bathroom. This isn't like cutting sandwiches or climbing stairs. It's private, personal stuff. Just like you, I don't care which way the toilet paper hangs, but I've certainly met people who take it very seriously. It isn't rational, but it's real. So yes, not a huge issue worldwide, but a very real (and "hot") issue to some people in some countries. HiLo48 (talk) 11:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I've made an edit to note that it's unimportant to many people, and to clarify that there's evidence that it is important to some people in North America. What do you think? Do you have any sources to support adding Australia to that sentence? Gronky (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

"Particularly in North America" is original research. Melchoir (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

At a glance, all the references are from North America. So we have loads of proof that this is an issue in North America, and (little or) no proof that the rest of the world cares about it. What's the correct way to word this? Gronky (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The distribution of the references doesn't prove anything. They were compiled by an English-speaking editor querying for English phrases in a newspaper database (Factiva) whose strongest coverage is in North America. Unless there is a reliable source that explicitly claims that the topic is or isn't a North American issue, it is better to say nothing at all. Melchoir (talk) 22:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Ann Landers quote

The intro says: "Advice columnist Ann Landers said that the subject was the most controversial issue in her column's history.". However, the Ann Landers article, which includes a "controversies" section, says nothing about her weighing in on this topic. She even got fired for another column, so I'm pretty sure that her toilet paper article wasn't really her most controversial. If she did say it, she was clearly joking. I'll remove that quote from the intro. Gronky (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

"Controversial" could just mean "provoking lots of feedback and argument over the topic", it doesn't have to mean a political hot-potato or something that causes boycotts of the publication and firings. Given how passionately it sounds like people hold their own opinions on this topic, and that it's something well in the realm of etiquette or other Landers topics, I don't doubt that she got lots of feedback from both sides about it. We're not allowed to make value/motivaiton judgements or assume someone meant other than what was said (without strong reliable sources) either. DMacks (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

See this quotation in the first paragraph of the "Noted preferences" section, which is reference in the footnote of the lead: "She reflected that the 15,000 letters made toilet paper the most controversial issue in her column's 31-year history". I will undo the change. Thanks, Melchoir (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Gronky, please just ease off. You think it's a stupid topic. Others don't. The world would be boring if we all thought the same way. Just accept that some people, less rational than you if you like, ARE obsessed with this issue. I personally think that the massive number of articles in Wikipedia on Association football (over 10% of articles, I believe) demonstrates an irrational obsession by many, but I know I'm not going to change it. SO I work to improve those articles. (A lot of fans aren't that good at composing great text.) Vive la difference. HiLo48 (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the people who are obsessed with this issue are writing a misleading article portraying this issue as being a hot topic the world over. But anyway, yeh, I'm giving up. Rather than convincing people, I'm just causing them to dig their heals in. I hope some people will give this a thought some time in the future and improve the article. Gronky (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Where did you get the impression that this is a hot topic the world over? Melchoir (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

And I just looked up the Toronto Star reference to be sure. The quote is: "Landers said the 15,000 letters she has received over the years rate the issue as the most controversial in the 31-year history of her column.". Melchoir (talk) 05:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Which, for her career, is a much better answer than "The time I made a racist comment and got fired". Her quote about herself isn't a third-party reference and should be taken with a pinch of salt. But I give up. Gronky (talk) 15:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, wikipedia editors are strictly forbidden from speculating reasons someone may have acted a certain way. I expected someone with over 10K edits would know better than that. DMacks (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

That's for the article. My comment here on the talk page aimed to point out that the accuracy of her statement is obviously susceptible to being questioned. For statements that are questionable, a WP:reliable source is required. Which, according to the policy, usually means third-party sources, and Ms. Landers is not a third-party source about herself. But anyway, the whole intro and much of the article should be rewritten or deleted, so a discussion focussed on this detail isn't really a path to bringing this to a WP-quality article. Gronky (talk) 01:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm still totally unclear whether over or under is better. SteubenGlass (talk) 08:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Scorpions & Spiders

I added a section about the dangers of reaching under the roll in climates where there are scorpions and venomous spiders. I've added references. If you disagree, please talk here before reverting. Thanks. Let99 (talk) 06:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The references aren't satisfactory. They are pictures that could have been take in a staged way, as some of the non-toilet roll ones obviously were. I have reverted, because there simply in't suitable evidence for your claim. HiLo48 (talk) 06:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The idea that the photos are staged is ridiculous. You think people pick up scorpions and spiders and place them on toilet paper rolls to stage photographs? I'm guessing that you have never lived in the desert. Let99 (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

It's WP:OR to use specific pictures as support of a general idea, and they also fail WP:RS. DMacks (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Really?

Are you serious? Toilet paper orientation? What the heck is going on here? Wasn't wikipedia meant to be a source of HELPFUL information? Who the * cares about toilet paper orientation? 94.112.11.61 (talk) 08:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

That's precisely what this article tells you. HiLo48 (talk) 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

What a total waste of memory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.3.2.240 (talk) 01:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

What is this?

This article is an example of ignorant Wikipedia editors going on a rampage. It is highly advisable that this "article" be deleted as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yavorpenchev (talk • contribs) 14:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a process for suggesting articles for deletion, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Sjö (talk) 14:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this article has been to AfD before: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toilet paper orientation. Melchoir (talk) 23:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I must object to the editors here being categorised as ignorant. They clearly know plenty, if only about toilet paper. And I really don't see a rampage. HiLo48 (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The Correct Answer

If you change the roll, you get to choose the orientation. Simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.155.110.4 (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)