Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
::::::I seriously believe that the photo of a partially-broken statue of a penis, located at the Sanctuary of Dionysus on the Greek island of Delos is closer to peoples visual expectations for the lede image an article about penises than jars of whale penises. Personally I think the majority of people would expect to see a photograph of a human penis, however I am well aware that ] watch this page and will insist that those interested in a human penis will type human penis not just penis, and that they consider seeing a photo of a human penis in the penis entry could shock. I think ] would be better as it is not shaved and is flacid, but I am more concerned with removing the freakshow exhibit from pride of place - the article is penis, not penes for a start!!!<span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC;font-size:20px"><b><font color="#B6316C">]</font></b></span> <sup>(<font color="#99BADD">♥ ]♥ </font>)</sup> 20:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
::::::I seriously believe that the photo of a partially-broken statue of a penis, located at the Sanctuary of Dionysus on the Greek island of Delos is closer to peoples visual expectations for the lede image an article about penises than jars of whale penises. Personally I think the majority of people would expect to see a photograph of a human penis, however I am well aware that ] watch this page and will insist that those interested in a human penis will type human penis not just penis, and that they consider seeing a photo of a human penis in the penis entry could shock. I think ] would be better as it is not shaved and is flacid, but I am more concerned with removing the freakshow exhibit from pride of place - the article is penis, not penes for a start!!!<span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC;font-size:20px"><b><font color="#B6316C">]</font></b></span> <sup>(<font color="#99BADD">♥ ]♥ </font>)</sup> 20:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
:::::::Please do not use Misplaced Pages for any sort of campaign—some may be ''pro'', and some may be ''anti'' censorship, but no editor should use an article or talk page as a forum to promote their personal views. Any proposal regarding the encyclopedic topic of this article needs to focus on benefits to the encyclopedia, without an editorial on "censors". Anyone with access to the Internet will have no trouble finding enough human penis pictures to satiate any appetite—in fact, this article has the handy ] section which links, naturally enough, to ]. ] (]) 08:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
== Cleanup needed ==
== Cleanup needed ==
Revision as of 00:17, 20 September 2013
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Penis article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed.
Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Penis. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Penis at the Reference desk.
Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning the penis.
To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question.
Q1:I have an issue with a picture on this article.
A1: You can post a message on this page about your concern. If you add or remove a photograph from the article, do not be surprised if someone else undoes your edit within hours. Keep in mind that Misplaced Pages is not censored. However from an editorial standpoint, debate about the inclusion or exclusion of certain pictures (or types of pictures) is a permanent fixture of this talk page.
Q2: I have an issue with a certain type of penis not being represented in photographs on this article.
A2: See answer to previous question.
Q3: I would like to upload a picture of my penis.
A3: Unfortunately, the realities of supply and demand are not in your favor. There is a large supply of Misplaced Pages editors willing to photograph their penis in the name of science. However, the demand is much lower. If you feel that your penis is more deserving of placement on the article page, you are free to make your case below.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
Wrong information
The section where it talks about growth of penis during puberty cites a research that supposingly found out that penis stops growing after age of 17. The thing is that its not even what the research was about. I cant edit the page so if someone else can please do.
Elephant penis confusing/contradicting info
The article says: "An adult elephant has the largest penis of any land animal at 6 feet (1.8 m) on average. An elephant's penis can reach a length of 100 cm (39 in) and a diameter of 16 cm (6 in) at the base." So is it 180cm on the average or 100cm at the extreme? Needs clarification.
Picture
Why is there no picture of human penis? An article about penises should have a picture of human penis. Maybe several, with one from each age group.
Trust me, we have been through that discussion ad nauseam. Meanwhile note that there is a hatnote directing curious parties to the human organ, or vox humana. JonRichfield (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
This is not true. No reason has been given, other than prudishness. JonRichfield is one of the main censors. His answer above is reflective of his argument - but perhaps he could expand. I second the request above.5.28.89.25 (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Penis's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡03:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
@User:NeilN and User:Melonkelon: I wasn't even aware of the concept of citation overkill until now - I didn't realize that it was possible for an article to have "too many citations". Can this article's quality be improved by deleting its least reliable citations, while leaving its most reliable citations in place? Jarble (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I directed Jarble to WP:Citation overkill and this section of the talk page, as seen here, here and here. Considering that the Penis article and therefore its associated talk page are undoubtedly on his WP:Watchlist, I'm not sure why he's just now responding to you guys. One reason for his citation overkill, as currently seen with the first line of the Mammals section, seems to be to cover text that states "different" or "many," or something similar. But like I stated, he should find one or two WP:Reliable sources (or even just stopping at four would be fine) that state "different" or "many," or at least shows one or both of those aspects, not add a bunch of WP:Reliable sources just to support that text. There is a How to trim excessive citations section at WP:Citation overkill for guidance on this matter. WP:Bundling, for example, which is a guideline and cites WP:Citation overkill, is very useful and I use that; it can be used not only with the examples currently shown at WP:Bundling. But there is no need to bundle many reliable sources; 25 references is extreme no matter what. WP:OVERKILL is an essay that is often followed; despite being an essay, it is deferred to in WP:Good article and WP:Featured article nominations. You will never see a Misplaced Pages article make it to good or featured article status with as extreme of citation overkill as Jarble has displayed in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
There should be. You might argue that there would be one on the dog penis article, but there wasnt, untill i re added it. This one would be fine here -
Proposed Merger of Pizzle with section on "Human use of animal penises"
The section on "Human use of animal penises" contains a flag asking for comments on a suggestion to merge the separate article on pizzle with that section. I know very little about either subject beyond what is in these two articles, and I'm therefore not qualified to edit the substance of either. However, in my view, the separate article in pizzle seems to be of sufficient magnitude and with sufficient references that it deserves to keep its separate status. The present article on "penis" is already sufficiently long and with sufficient references, it seems inappropriate to merge the articles on that ground. Secondly, the subject of the pizzle article is sufficiently different, it deserves to be kept separate on that ground. DavidMCEddy (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic. Because the Misplaced Pages project is in a position to offer multimedia learning to its audience, images are an important part of any article's presentation. Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal, especially on pages which have few visuals.
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.
look like a penis and should it remain as the lede picture? Should this article be illustrated with pictures of penises, or should they be restricted to subpages?♥ L'Origine du monde ♥04:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Fine for Icelandic Phallological Museum does not mean fine for Penis. Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic, which is why this image was appropriate there, not as the first photo here! That said, it could perhaps be moved to the Human use of animal penises section, and you might consider adding information about that museum there.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥04:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Article on Penis. Picture of penises. Seems pretty relevant to me. Article on Heart, pictures of hearts. Article on Lung, pictures of lungs...--NeilN05:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Editors should not open an RfC unless some significant effort has been spent in becoming familiar with the article and after engaging with other editors on talk. Obviously the images used in this article have been a source of fascination for an endless stream of editors over the years, and it should be assumed that there is solid consensus for the current article as it has been stable for some time. The term "subpages" is not appropriate as they are not used for encyclopedic content; possibly that term was meant to suggest that the image in question should be further down the article—there is no reason to do that. Johnuniq (talk) 06:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Though, neither heart nor lung has for its first image a shriveled, colorless, lump of tissue in a jar. It's difficult to gain much information from this photo. If it were up to me, I may not even include it in the article, let alone put it first.--Taylornate (talk) 06:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
It seems the opposition was mainly about not wanting to have a human penis as the lede photo, rather than about this being an appropriate lede photo.--Taylornate (talk) 07:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree but this poorly worded RFC and the user's edits to the article don't even suggest an alternative. --NeilN07:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
"Does this picture...look like a penis" Yes, it certainly doesn't look like my penis, but there are obviously (non-human) penises.
"and should it remain as the lede picture?" Frankly, I don't care, but there should obviously be a picture of a penis in the lede section. Misplaced Pages is not censored.
"Should this article be illustrated with pictures of penises, or should they be restricted to subpages?" Yes, this article should have an appropriate number of pictures of a penis. Again, Misplaced Pages is not censored. Guy1890 (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
The lead image is fine. The article needs more images - the sections on bats, primates and humans are all bereft. Medicine/biology illustrations of the basic structure of mammalian, avian, etc penises would be good too. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
I see your issue with this. Misplaced Pages has a love/hate relationship with sexual imagery. At the moment, "uncensored" can often mean "censored yet replaced with something relevant". That could mean we now use more acceptable drawings or, in this case, pickled/jarred whale penises, instead of the more explicit penis itself. I can't say what should be done about this, as it's a more pervasive issue than this little talk page can handle. But I'm not sure at all what you mean by "restricted to subpages". Subpages aren't used on articles except for some cases of transcluded content. equazcion 00:01, 15 Sep 2013 (UTC)
I agree the current image is absolutely fine for illustrating the article. I'm always open to suggestions of a better one. --cyclopia00:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I would recommend selecting an illustrative example of a penis as the first image, perhaps a diagram showing internal structure that penises tend to share. However, I do not think that a picture of pickled whale penises has no place in the article—they are penises, and even if they do not look like human penises, they can serve as an illustration of what penises can look like in other species. — daranz21:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Agreed with Daranz - some diagram comparing multiple species, or showing internal structure, would be helpful. The current image is appropriate for the article and ok for the lede if not perfect. – SJ +09:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Comment I recommend you look at a comparative article, say Vagina. Look at the photos there, they are mostly medical illustrations, not photos of exotic genitalia. Could we go in this direction here, meaning, less focus on which species penis is pictured and more on the biology of the organ?
I think we should consider the educational purposes of this entry. Suppose an individual has a question about infertility, impotence or prostrate cancer and comes to this page...wouldn't a diagram of the physiology of the penis be more relevant than a photo of a mallard's penis? I'm not saying that this is an either/or situation but I'm arguing for a little detachment...what would be included if this was an article about the eye, hand, foot, liver or heart? That's what a penis is, a biological organ.
It also seems odd that there is not more of a connection made to Phallus which is the cultural symbolism of the penis. At the least, the article should be included, prominently, under "See also". Liz18:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
P.S. I discovered that much of what I'm arguing for is found at Human penis. I didn't realize that a separate article existed. That renders some of my comments moot. Liz18:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Human penis is exactly what I mean by a subpage. Used as an excuse to keep images off this page, and focus on pickeled whale penises. I am doubtful anyone searching for penis expects to see fotos of them in jars.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥01:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
This would be better - may be broken, but isn't in bottles! A partially-broken statue of a penis, located at the Sanctuary of Dionysus on the Greek island of Delos♥ L'Origine du monde ♥04:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I seriously believe that the photo of a partially-broken statue of a penis, located at the Sanctuary of Dionysus on the Greek island of Delos is closer to peoples visual expectations for the lede image an article about penises than jars of whale penises. Personally I think the majority of people would expect to see a photograph of a human penis, however I am well aware that censors watch this page and will insist that those interested in a human penis will type human penis not just penis, and that they consider seeing a photo of a human penis in the penis entry could shock. I think ] would be better as it is not shaved and is flacid, but I am more concerned with removing the freakshow exhibit from pride of place - the article is penis, not penes for a start!!!♥ L'Origine du monde ♥20:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Cleanup needed
This article is a mess; lots of dissimilar bits of text thrown together. I refactored the sections a bit, removing those with just one sentence, and condensed the hatnotes.
Right now the canine section is too long, as it just transcludes the standalone article; that should be condensed to a few sentences. Similar balancing and narrative are needed in each section. There are random anecdotes from individual animal orders, but no real overview or narrative to make sense of them. – SJ +09:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
view · edit Frequently asked questions
.svg){kind=small}
