Talk:Toilet paper orientation

Deletion discussions

...This is a real article?24.78.203.2 (talk) 20:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy as hoax?

This seems like a stealth advertising campaign linked to Cottonelle's "Roll Poll", which is in fact linked in the article. There have been advertisements about which way you "roll" toilet paper (check the web).~~M —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.64.224.128 (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

While I was pleasantly surprised to find such an article on WP, with seemingly deep analysis, I concluded that this article is most likely fake. None of the references are hyperlinked or googlable (or matched results are irrelevant). Inline citations seem to be circular. Seems like someone celebrates April Fools on 4th of July.

Please add template for deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.139.39.64 (talk • contribs)

It's a pretty trivial topic, I'll admit, but it's well-referenced (the hyperlinked references all seem to work, and I was 1-for-2 on finding print references online, granted I didn't check too many of them). I don't think it fits speedy criteria, though do take it to WP:AfD if you feel strongly that I'm mistaken. —BorgHunter (talk) 01:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm fortunate enough to be able to access Factiva from any computer, using a member's card from my local public library (which was free). Factiva's full-text search of newspaper archives is invaluable for researching inane topics! The document IDs are listed in the article's footnotes, so if you have access to Factiva, you can verify the references yourself.

I didn't systematically search for equivalent free URLs. Sometimes newspaper articles will also be available on the paper's website, or on Google News. If you find alternate, more accessible URLs, please add them!

Finally, if I cite a book, it means I was able to read the relevant passages through some combination of Google and Amazon previews. Some books that I couldn't preview online, but which are likely to contain additional material for the article, are listed in the "Further reading" section.

I'm not sure what "Inline citations seem to be circular" means. Melchoir (talk) 08:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's the OP again. I seem unable to find any of the references online, so a link to some would be useful. I have searched the title of a dozen refrences, the first result always being this page or Melchoir's sandbox. Excuse me if I am wrong, but I still think I was right.

I am sure this article should be given some "disputable" tag at least. Could someone look into this (other than the article's creator)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.139.34.106 (talk) 10:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I added a few more URLs to ones I could find. Others aren't on Google, but this is hardly surprising; many newspapers don't have their archives up for free, and some of these are to journal articles which definitely won't just be on Google. It's always a good idea to get more eyes checking the sources and all that if we can get them, but for a lot of these, we hoi polloi who are out of college and don't have access to fancy university search engines simply don't have access to some of these references. —BorgHunter (talk) 11:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks BorgHunter!

93.139: Hopefully the new links give you at least some confidence in the validity of the remaining references. If you're still not satisfied, there are three options for further action I can think of:

1. You're right, there exists such a tag: {{Unlinked references}}. But it's not really appropriate for this article. Cleanup tags are a quick way to alert editors to a problem with an article, and to attract an organized response from third parties. In this case, a discussion has already been started and mitigations performed, so putting up a tag now would be rather pointless. Bottom line: if you add it, I'll remove it. :-)
2. We could easily create a {{Factiva}} template for use inside the "id" field of citations. This template would transform the existing plain text "Factiva dal0000020011207dmb702ey9" into something like "Factiva dal0000020011207dmb702ey9 (subscription required)". This solution doesn't address the underlying difficulty of checking references, but it would perhaps be more transparent for concerned readers.
3. Finally, if there is a specific article you really want to read for yourself, you can ask Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange for help. (This would require creating a user account to protect your e-mail address.)

Thanks, Melchoir (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I've implemented option 2. I'll give it a few days to settle before converting some of my other articles. Melchoir (talk) 06:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

OP: I tried to "find the (printed) sources online", and the first two random picks showed up on Googlebooks, and yes, the sources confirm what's in the article. Nothing to worry about here. East of Borschov 08:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Whether the sources exist or not, it's quite clearly a spoof ("A toilet seat left up: not ready to be sat upon"... purlease). The funniest thing about it is the fact that people are taking it seriously... HieronymousCrowley (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Votes

My vote is to delete. I have seen some trivial junk on W*, but this takes the cake. Maurice Fox (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the "Motivations for study" section? Melchoir (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a vote? (For the record, in the great words of Kofi Annan, "hell no". This article made my day.) --an odd name 18:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep forever. This is why I love Wikipedia. I'd kill to get obscure articles and missives from the c19th and eons past. This will be more useful to historians in the future than a bound volume of the proceedings of Congress or whatnot. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Gareth E Kegg-that whats makes Wikipedia unique. Thank you-RFD (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep. Weird but relevant, it's Wikipedia in a nutshell. If we can make it verifiable and relevant, I mean. 204.69.139.16 (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

This article makes a mockery of the idea of a serious community-generated Internet encyclopedia. Delete. Yaush (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

If we have Sound of fingernails scraping chalkboard, we can have this.
I do have to say, though, it puts a whole new spin on that "Wikipedia is not paper" aphorism. Daniel Case (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Since I don't accept your "if" clause, your conclusion is irrelevant. Yaush (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I know, I know, no OR -- but nevertheless one wonders whether the urge to a speedy delete here may be linked with the belief in a single right way to hang the roll. - Tenebris

Keep, the arguement between over vs. under is real enough to warrant an article. However I was disappointed not to see a reference to Dave Barry's statement on the subject. I think it was late 80s early 90s. --Parajedi (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The fact of arguing about this is ridiculous, but it's real. As a teenager (30 years ago), I was actually yelled at by an adult for doing it "wrong." I replied with the dutiful-son version of "what the hell difference does it make?". The adult replied that "Ann Landers says so". It was a great growing-up moment for me, since I realized that adults could be credulous idiots. Jimcski (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep. It's a modern equivalent of big-enders and little-enders; and if that was good enough for Swift, this is good enough for Wikipedia. ariwara (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

First, let me introduce myself: I'm the person that vandalized this article by adding "Toilet paper orientation is a study about nothing, performed by people with nothing better to do, using grants funded by oblivious taxpayers" in the first line. I got a reply from "User Talk" saying that my edit was removed because it "did not appear to be constructive". WTF? So this article appears to be constructive? Delete it!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.25.165.2 (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete this!

It's a (mock?) discussion of something that is strictly a matter of personal taste, nothing more. As the old adage has it, "there's no accounting for taste" (or, as it's put in French, chacun à son goût), so the fact that people differ is simply not significant. This article no different in spirit from on about the fact that some people prefer chocolate ice cream over vanilla, and vice versa. Or that some people prefer lemon in their tea and others milk. Or that some men prefer boxers and others briefs.

None of these preferences is worthy of Wikipedia coverage.

Now, a good fact-filled article on the history of bum wiping, with cross-cultural comparisons, would be suitable; but this article comes nowhere near that.

Floozybackloves (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

If you come across a reliable source describing the history or the cross-cultural differences around this issue, by all means, please make it known! I certainly agree that such a source would be valuable. You can cite the source yourself, or you can add it to the "Further reading" section, or just mention it here, on the talk page.

Meanwhile, there are plenty of sources already that describe why the fact that people differ is significant. See the "Motivations for study" section. Melchoir (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Notability Tag

I added the Not Notable tag to draw attention to this article which, if it were in print, would be written on toilet paper. 115 sources does not a banquet make - there is almost no significance in the subject except as possible a footnote to the Toilet paper article. Darcyj (talk) 23:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Material to add

From various discussions: Melchoir (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Dave Barry
• Under makes it easier to re-roll tail end

Toddlers

What I thought was the most obvious issue isn't mentioned even once: When toddlers or babies are first able to reach the toilet paper, their instinct to explore often makes them unroll the entire roll onto the floor. That can happen with either orientation, but especially with "over", because a downward batting motion at the roll is more physiologically natural than an upward motion. So with kids under 2 or 3, the only answer is "under". Only after they get bigger do the other considerations matter. See this and this for instance, and note that some people have a similar problem with cats. Art LaPella (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've added toddlers to Toilet paper orientation#Arguments with this edit. My impression from the sources is that the cat argument is more widespread than the toddler argument, but I was able to find one published instance in a letter to the editor of Esquire. Thanks, Melchoir (talk) 22:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Ramifications

I hope this will be supplemented by further articles on related and similarly fascinating topics, such as folding vs. wadding, number of sheets used, and the all-important subject of texture preferences! I'll be watching....

Sca (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I for one don't plan on writing them. :-) I haven't done the research on those topics, so I can't say whether or not enough nontrivial coverage exists to fill an article. If you find any information, feel free to add it to the main Toilet paper article; if enough content accumulates there, it can be split off later. Melchoir (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Considering that texture preferences drive utilitarian mass-produced choices in everything from carpets to papers and the high fashion industry alike, and are thus relevant to a significant percentage of the global economy? - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.193 (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Posible snips

"although North Korean officials have argued that Kim is not, in fact, a dictator." and the "A toilet seat left up: not ready to be sat upon" pic certianly ad humor but I'm not really sure they are justifable from an encyclopedic POV.©Geni 21:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree, I'd suggest removing/rephrasing. Great article by the way Melchoir, read all of it.. Pim Rijkee (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

The dictator line is kind of a dual-purpose instrument. Sure, humor is the reason why I like it. But it also provides relevant commentary on the topic of its paragraph. I'd prefer to keep the line if at all possible.

The toilet seat caption I feel less strongly about; I honestly didn't expect it to be read as humorous. Do you have a suggestion for rephrasing it, in a way that still explains its relevance? Melchoir (talk) 22:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)