Talk:Toilet paper orientation

Possible resource for text and images

I recently added http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3002112/Age-old-debate-toilet-paper-settled-patent-1891.html as an external link. I noticed that there are other available sources covering the patent documents coming to light as well. Upon reflection, it seems this info may be well worth noting somewhere in the article (where/how?). And also it occurs to me that some of the images (from 19th-century gov't documents) may be candidates for addition to Commons. Noting here in case someone else cares to address this before/if I 'get around to it'. --Kevjonesin (talk) 04:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Patent link: https://www.google.com/patents/US465588

Image (good resolution): https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pages/US465588-0.png (via preceding Google link, itself via HuffPost)

Embedded PDF @ United States Patent and Trademark Office

--Kevjonesin (talk) 05:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Uploaded image as: File:Toilet-paper-roll-patent-US465588-0.png --Kevjonesin (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/17/toilet-paper-actually-goes-over_n_6887724.html --Kevjonesin (talk) 10:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• I went ahead and added the patent image to the article in the 'Noted preferences#Over' subsection along with a referenced caption. --Kevjonesin (talk) 11:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

List of people is getting ridiculous

The list of famous people and pseudo-celebrities who have written or tweeted or said something about this is getting ridiculous. It's a massive trivia pit. I would like to kill it, replacing it with a single paragraph saying that the topic has been commented on many well-known people over the years, often with tongue in cheek, and reference just a couple of them.

What do people think? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I say, go for it, DavidWBrooks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how that is a problem. --80.6.106.117 (talk) 09:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused by the pronoun - do you support the idea of greatly reducing the list, or not? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, get rid of it. I don't even think you need a consensus here. You posted your comment over a month ago, and with the possible exception of the vague response from anon 80, there is no objection. Wikipedia tolerates a bit of trivia, but not endless lists of miscellaneous information. Some articles are trivia magnets, and this is on of them. In such cases, it's not enough that the actual trivia items is sourced. The notability or importance of the trivia should be sourced. And I see very little of that. Sundayclose (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, they're gone. This article is still waaaaay too long - it's more like an inside joke, or a parody of a wikipedia article, taking a non-issue seriously. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

It was nominated for deletion, where it was overwhelmingly decided to keep. It has had a GA review, with most of the criteria judged to be fulfilled. Go figure! Sundayclose (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

It's definitely worth keeping - it just needs serious pruning, in my opinion (which is humble whether hung over or under). - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

When I'm hungover, sometimes I need lots of toilet paper in any orientation. :) Sundayclose (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)