Talk:Toilet paper orientation/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Deletion discussions

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)

Just an example: There is an article in wikipedia on hot carriers injection. It is highly serious, horribly referenced and absolutely irrelevent for 99.999% of wikipedias's users (low estimate). I know more people interested in the social backround of and the research into toilet paper orientation than I know people interested in hot carriers (the latter having books explaining this in much more detail than wikipedia ever can.). And I am a semiconductor physicist working on excited carriers. Who says, just because it deals with everyday stuff it can't be scientific or relevant. Even if the author wrote it with a smile, of course. Relax! I don't know wikipedias guidelines by heart, but I'm sure there's space on wikipedia's drives for this.(And if we want to save space maybe we should keep the discussions small:) --Tonimueller (talk) 09:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete or Reduce and Merge with Toilet Paper. This kind of argument is inane and belongs on a comedy or offbeat wiki, notoriety may be established but content is without merit. Also reeks of viral marketing. Dvorachek (talk) 06:16, 13 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)

Ontology

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

I am doubtful that this is real. It reminds me of the old "Upper Peninsula War" article. I love how all the external links magically happen to require subscriptions. Plus, this whole topic is trivial, and in my decades alive, no one has ever mentioned this to me. This article is all that I have heard on the topic in many years. I think this article is fake.

I propose we put this on the article and its talk page:

This page is intended as humor, or comic relief. 96.228.159.27 (talk) 19:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The article very clearly isn't intended as humor or comic relief. This absolutely does not belong on the page.Number36 (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I know it's not intended as humor, I just made that proposition because I found the article uninformative but hilarious. 96.228.159.27 (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The Tag you proposed would indicate the article was intended for humour, which if you don't think it is, seems not really founded in anything. The article is informative, did you know real reasearch had been done into the question, that the majority prefers it to hang forward, any of the specific relevent opinions put forward and so on. The subject matter may seem slightly burlesque in it's serious treatment of what you consider a trifle, but it's certainly a real and valid subject, in point of fact, that people do treat something trivial as an important subject for discussion, and apparently feel quite strongly about it, is part of what makes this notable.Number36 (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I know it is not originally intended as humor, but I think I have spoken for many a person in saying that it is not relevant to me and also in saying that comic relief was the only result.96.228.159.27 (talk) 14:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Epistemology

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)

The references by Burns and Sinrod/Poretz are already enough to establish notability in the sence of Wikipedia:Notability. Melchoir (talk) 23:51, 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
  • Over reduces premature tearing in gravity-fed multiple-roll systems

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)
Keep the dictator line, only because one would expect it to end with "woman" instead. --an odd name 00:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, image caption is better this way. No problem with the dictator line here. Pim Rijkee (talk) 11:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I've removed it. The citation was completely unrelated to the previous bit of text.©Geni 17:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I wept

...at the brilliance of this article. Upon reading it angels descended from the heavens and bestowed upon me the softest, most plyest rolls of toilet paper. Truly a gift from the porcelain god. Thank you, Melchoir, for enriching my life.--§hanel 23:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

See, now this is the kind of comment we need more of. ;-) Please remember to stay hydrated as the tears fall -- safety first! Melchoir (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I have not read an article of this magnitude of brilliance in many a year. Amazing stuff! ~ Riana ⁂ 03:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Gravity-fed dispensers

While I agree with the above that this article certainly is one of the most trivial I've yet seen on WP (probably should have 80% cut and be a section in the toilet paper page), I have an observation that I don't see mentioned in the text: in most public restrooms, when there is more than one roll, the roll in use is invaribly the lower one (so that the new one can fall into place when the old one is empty). This results in that if the roll is oriented 'under', the weight of the currently-used roll prevents it from rolling easily, therefore it tends to tear easiler, resulting in little bits of shreaded paper instead of sheets. The same problem occurs in gravity-fed paper towel bins or napkin dispensers (solution in those is do not fill them up all the way). CFLeon (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting point! I've added it to the list. For the other thing, I'd just like to note Wikipedia:Manual of Style (summary style) and Toilet paper#Orientation. Thanks, Melchoir (talk) 00:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Flappying

In reference 34, is that a typo for flapping? I don't have access to the source to verify it (although the full quote does turn up one non-WP google hit). —Soap— 00:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't have the source in front of me at the moment, but I believe "flappying" is correct. I probably copy-pasted it directly from the Factiva page. Melchoir (talk) 00:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
...Confirmed, "flappying". Melchoir (talk) 03:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Author compensation?

Wouldn't an obvious question be to ask whether the OP received any compensation, monetary or otherwise for writing the article. Is the OP employed by a major manufacturer of toilet paper or an advertising/publicity firm retained by one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.88.4 (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

A fair question. The answer is no. Melchoir (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Then I have no objection —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.88.4 (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Ann Lander's inclusion in the 'Under' list

Surely the discussion of her position elsewhere on the page reflects that her opinion changed, or was at least not as definite as when she made the statement which is quoted to justify her inclusion in the list. Such as the description of changing the advice in her column from under to over in response to feedback, and from the last comment she made in her final column. Otherwise more than excellent article and strongly disagree with those above who are against it.121.72.145.99 (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

There is some ambiguity there, but I'm not too worried. My interpretation of those two statements is that they were her attempts at mollifying her readers, while her initial statement, her statement on Oprah, the 1998 column, and the Wizda reference reflect her personal opinion. This interpretation is supported by the "In spite of the fact... I still prefer" quote. The Wizda reference is the most elaborative of the way she feels, so it's a good fit for the list. Melchoir (talk) 03:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Hm, yes, now I read it again that does seem clearer with the 1998 column. Though she does seem to have changed her position in so far as that is stated to be a personal preference rather than advice or an opinion on a 'correct' method (which fits with the list I know). Not sure what her statement was on Oprah, it doesn't seem to be in the article. Ah well, my apologies, carry on :)Coincidently just woke up to my radio alarm with the radio host raising this very subject as the subject for discussion. The orientation I mean, not Ann Lander's inclusion on the list in this article; now that would've been weird.121.72.145.99 (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Excellent! Hopefully that wasn't a coincidence, and I've made a few radio hosts' lives easier in their endless search for material. ;-)
Anyway, I'll quote a section of the Oprah transcript: "Well, I like it hanging--in my house, we hang it so that it's down along the wall. Thank you. Thank you. But the--the majority..." and later on: "Well, Oprah, it's all right. I'm used to--I'm used to being a minority." Melchoir (talk) 03:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hygiene

I'm really amazed why nobody asked a healthcare professional to give the most logical reason from a hygiene point of view... totally and utterly flabbergasted.. but thanks for the rest of the research which adds to this crazy article :)

Sometimes logic and taking one step back and actually looking at what the device/item tries to do is the best step... but then again, this is Wikipedia.. where common sense is sentenced to death, even if it's backed by years of personal experience and/or general consensus (which has not been scientifically proven, because no-one has the time to perform these nonsensical experiments..) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.96.165.209 (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source, or is this from personal analysis? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toilet_paper_orientation&action=historysubmit&diff=431282130&oldid=431281309

I would really like someone to do some research on this and get this out of our way.. 'over' is best, but my gut feeling and personal experience isn't good enough.. where can we ask for an experimental bit of research on this topic? :) - 05:33, 28 May 2011 (CET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.96.165.209 (talk)

Something stated as a best-practice among a large group of professionals would potentially be written down in the housekeeping guide of a nursing-home company (or recommendations for writing one from a standards/professional group of them). Or similarly in the training materials for housekeepers or others at these facilities. DMacks (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The pictures

The "over" orientation
The "under" orientation

Anybody else think the picture of the over orientation at the start of the article seems a lot less appealing compared to the picture of the under orientation with its warm colours, homely feel, fancy wooden holder and a nice full roll. The over one seems barren, cold, and untidy by contrast, the way it's shot so you can see the cardboard tube and the paper hanging over creased or ripped rather than hanging neatly straight down, the back and middle ground hazy and out of focus, it doesn't even seem like as good a quality of paper, just seems quite uneven to me in the depictions.Number36 (talk) 23:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

(copying the pictures to the right)
I don't know, the over photo has some nice qualities: it's simpler, with fewer distractions from the subject. The soft shadows on the wall, and the out-of-focus part of the holder, are just enough to suggest where the wall is, without making the wall the subject. That crease in the paper that you call untidy provides a certain dynamic feel, and it's just begging to be grabbed. Melchoir (talk) 03:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Well I guess there is a degree of subjectiveness about it, but it still looks rather 'before shot' to me, compared with the under orientation's friendly warm tones and fancy gold adorned roller. I think the cold colours/soft focus brings an association of the cold and a frosty morning chill in the air, which isn't great when sitting down in the place where the toilet paper is if you see what I mean :) . The focus of the shot doesn't really seem to be on the paper being over the top to me either, but more on the end of the roll. There's a very nice shot here, maybe isn't free I know, but something along those lines would be good.Number36 (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Here's a nicer shot, CC licensed: [1] Fences&Windows 18:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I've already searched through all the free images on Flickr. :-) 3895680445 is a good scene, but it's all about the bright red holder. We'd have to crop that out... and speaking of cropping, the end of the paper is awfully close to the bottom of the frame. The side of the roll is showing some kind of brownish discoloration... is that water damage?
If it were available, 1234.jpg would be pretty good, except it's an uncomfortably close crop as well, and the whites are even more blown out than the existing photo.
Number36: I see what you mean about the focus on the end of the roll. I don't think I agree, but I can certainly see how it can be viewed that way. Melchoir (talk) 08:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that I appreciate the fact that the "over" picture is listed first. As it should be. :p Trevorzink (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Symmetry

While some have argued that broken symmetry is the essence of beauty, the beauty of this simple edit [2] serves as refutation in part. Kudos. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 16:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, this edit restoring symmetry isn't bad itself! Melchoir (talk) 03:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed Baughman

I'm removing this paragraph:

George Baughman, an entrepreneur who sells lobster and moose-themed toilet paper to tourists in Maine, was inspired to think about toilet paper packaging by the over-under debate in his family. He therefore named his business "Roll-Rite Paper Products".[1][2]

  1. ^ Staff and wire reports (9 December 1993), "Fast-selling moose-droppings jewelry called the ultimate in Maine recycling", Bangor Daily News
  2. ^ Graettinger, Diana (20 April 1994), "Businessman touts virtues of new toilet paper", Bangor Daily News, Factiva bngr000020011028dq4k009jy

Melchoir (talk) 03:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Further studies

Interesting article.

I wonder if the people who worked on this article would be interested in working on material about the usage of toilet paper.

I read (somewhere, I don't remember where, but fairly recently) that about half of all people use toilet paper while sitting down and half while standing up. Why is this not in the Wikipedia? I'm sure this study can be retrieved and perhaps form the basis for a new article. Also, the question arises: what percentage of people are folders, or wadders, or crumplers, or whatnot? There must be research on this, along with studies of the advantages and disadvantages of each, the optimum number of squares to use, recommended techniques, and so forth. If not, perhaps someone can make a grant proposal for such studies. Herostratus (talk) 19:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

;-) Well, I for one plan to move on to other areas. I wouldn't want to wake up one morning to find that I'd become the toilet paper guy! You wanna give it a shot? Melchoir (talk) 08:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
The most important use of toilet paper is currently a poor stub. Fences&Windows 00:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Some references...
99.94.146.29 (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Toilet paper orientation/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilkTork *YES! 17:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

This should be good. My second wife had a thing about hanging the loo paper the correct way (dropping away from the wall), which I've picked up! Be good to read some analysis and history of this social absurdity! SilkTork *YES! 17:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Prose is mostly clear. There is a tendency to reduce the prose into bullet points, and to use a casual style perhaps more suited to magazines, as well as a discursive approach more suited to essays, so as part of the ongoing development of the article the style needs addressing, but is currently acceptable against GA criteria. Some paragraphs are quite short and this intrudes on the reading flow. The whole of the article could be improved with some tightening up - removing some bullet points, and allowing the article to flow a bit more. It can be a bit choppy, with data point followed by data point.
    B. MoS compliance:
    The lead mentions most of the content of the article, though perhaps does so in too quick and breathless a manner, and I'm uncomfortable with the chatty wording, and the inaccuracy of the statement that Ann Landers is a columnist, rather than "Ask Ann Landers" is an advice column. These are debating points rather than fails. Wikipedia:Embedded list gives some advice on the use of bulleted lists - and again it's a debating point if this article's use of listing is more or less helpful to the reader than using prose.
    In my experience, it's the norm to refer to the columnist as Ann Landers. It's not a universal convention, but it's easily in the majority. Melchoir (talk) 06:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
    [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], "Ann Landers column" - 845,000 results - "Ann Landers" - 170,000 results - "advice columnist Ann Landers" - 207,000 results. Not an exhaustive search, but indications are that it may not be majority usage. Where appropriate it can be useful to give more information, and to clarify where there is potential for mistakes - I think it's more useful to clarify for those who haven't heard of this column that the name applies to the column not the person. Not a big issue, just something that would be useful. SilkTork *YES! 10:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
    The name refers to both. If it's not a big issue it's not a big issue, but if necessary I'll go through the cited references and offer quotes. Melchoir (talk) 01:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
    I have concerns over WP:UNDUE and WP:TRIVIA regarding the inclusion of celebrity preferences, particularly those that can't reasonably be considered "expert opinions" as well. Triona (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
    On the topic of toilet paper orientation, there is no privileged class of "expert opinions". Everyone is an expert, and I just added a citation saying so. These are simply the people whose opinions have been published by the media. Melchoir (talk) 11:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Article is sourced and there is a reference section. This is a double reference section - and I wonder if such a system is needed here, where most cites are used only once. It increases space and forces a reader to make an extra click to find the appropriate cite.
    The double reference section is a relatively recent change; this is what it looked like before. Melchoir (talk) 06:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
    That is easier to use and more helpful for readers. SilkTork *YES! 10:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
    I disagree:
    1. It artifically increases the number of footnotes, which makes the prose harder to read, and artifacts like "[20][21][22][23]" just look silly.
    2. It makes citations to Burns or to Poretz & Sinrod after the first citation choose between a short citation and a full citation. But a short citation is inconsistent, which is bad, and a full citation is redundant.
    3. The old format conflated the page range of the footnote and the page range of the source.
    4. The lack of alphabetization made it difficult to tell that some authors were cited mulitple times in separate works.
    5. Finally, the large amount of inline markup made editing the prose difficult, which is important when you consider that most people who hit the Edit link are trying to edit the prose, not the references.
    The double references have their own disadvantages, but these are less serious:
    1. It increases space, but space in the endmatter is less important than the formatting of the body. And we can afford the pixels.
    2. An extra click isn't great, but it doesn't make it harder to follow a citation; it makes the process take a couple extra seconds. Melchoir (talk) 02:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    There are lots of cites, though a good number of those I have clicked on at random have led me to a page such as this, which requires me to pay to view. I will see if there is a way around that, and will continue to check the other sources.
    I have free access to Factiva through my local public library's website, using a number on the back of my library card (which was also free). You might be able to get in through a library yourself. Or Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange might help. Melchoir (talk) 06:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
    C. No original research:
    Early days yet, as I haven't been able to check sources, and haven't done any background reading, though the collection of material from different sources and presented an an over view is giving me pause for thought.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Seems OK
    B. Focused:
    The Noted preference section goes into excessive and tedious detail regarding the preferences of various "celebrities". The Related issues section is not needed - if some comparison with other social issues were appropriate (which it may be), then a sentence in one of the other sections - perhaps the first one, Context and relevance - may be more appropriate
    Celebrities I could see in a daughter summary-style article. Related issues is tricky... the original idea was for it to take the place of a "See also" section with verifiable connections. It is similar to "Context and relevance". One difference: the first section makes connections to issues that are related in their social function, while the last section makes connections to issues that are related in their physical form. Melchoir (talk) 06:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
    ...Or, come to think of it, the detail for each celebrity could be moved into a footnote. The body of the section would then be a couple paragraphs of comma-separated names. Melchoir (talk) 07:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
    I'm not convinced that the celebrities' views would make an appropriate stand alone article, so I am not supporting that. I also remain unconvinced why we need the opinion of any celebrity on the matter, let alone a whole bunch of them. A summary that people have a difference of opinion on the matter is appropriate, and a reliable source that has looked at the different views and produced that summary would be what we should be looking for. A subject in which people have a difference of opinion is God, and that article deals with the matter in an appropriate manner. A series of quotes from celebrities in that article would be as inappropriate as it is here - it is reducing this topic to something humorous, which would be an individual point of view. Let us have the views of sociologists not Marge Simpson! SilkTork *YES! 10:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
    The section provides more information than the celebrities' opinions. It also provides information on how they phrase their opinions -- which is not a trivial matter for a topic with no unified language -- and what reasons they give. And it provides information about the media: who is likely to ask this question, and whom do they ask? We can and do summarize the mere existence of different opinions, but we cannot summarize this additional data without performing a synthesis and violation WP:NOR.
    I don't understand the comment that quotations make the treatment humorous, or that coverage of celebrities and sociologists are somehow exclusive. Melchoir (talk) 02:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
    I feel that regarding related issues, that Morton Ann Gernsbacher's comments in Context and relevance cover quite adequately the main principles of Related issues, and so the Related issues section is not needed, and like the celebrities section, is likely to pull the article in an inappropriate direction. While there is clearly a light-hearted aspect to the topic, the treatment should in itself be neutral and sober. SilkTork *YES! 10:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
    "Related issues" wasn't intended to assert any principles; it's like a "See also" section but with explanations and citations. In lieu of such a section, I suppose the material currently there could be integrated elsewhere: possibly other toilet practices into "Survey results", domestic strife wherever that's discussed (currently "Solutions"), and other everyday objects into the geometry in "Preliminaries". Again, though, I don't understand what's not "neutral and sober". Melchoir (talk) 04:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
    ...and that's what I did in these edits. Melchoir (talk) 08:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    There is currently a dispute over the article's style
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Images pass GA criteria and are both useful and light-hearted - though, for ongoing development, the point of a commentator on the talkpage that the images of the over and under positions could be more neutral is worth considering
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


Initial read through and I found the article quite entertaining and reasonably informative. I did, however, find it lighter both in tone and content than I had hoped. While there is much here in terms of wordage, I find some of the content - such as the related content and the list of celebrities' opinions - to be not essential. There is also the tricky question of OR, as I have just done a quick search for "Toilet paper orientation" and found nothing significant on the topic. The best source appears to be Burns' article in the Teaching Sociology magazine. The topic does have enough general commentary to pass GNG - it is the question of how the material is to be assembled that I am raising as a talking point. I would have thought that there would be more material on this topic, and will continue to do some research. I can remember reading articles on this matter some years ago - I'll see if I can find them. I remember reasonably serious discussion on the toilet paper orientation being linked to class and to matters such as U and non-U English. I'll do a bit of research and background reading, and in the next few days give clearer indications of what I feel the article would need to pass GA.

Yeah, unfortunately, there isn't exactly a coherent body of literature on this topic. One symptom of this problem is that the topic itself doesn't have a common name, as far as I can tell. The phrase "toilet paper orientation" is meant as a succinct description of the topic, rather than a claim that the phrase is widely used.
I don't think the sources are synthesized to advance a position. It's certainly a danger in such situations, but I think the danger has been avoided to this point.
Reasonably serious discussion -- sounds promising! Good luck! Melchoir (talk) 06:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes "toilet paper position" is also used, and then there's "toilet roll" and "lavatory paper" as alternatives. However, I feel that Toilet paper orientation is clear and neutral, and appears to have wide use. But the naming issue aside, it is gathering information on the topic that is problematic without existing reliable sources that deal with it directly as a topic rather than in passing. The topic is known, so is appropriate to be dealt with on Wikipedia, what is not known is how to deal with it as an encyclopaedia entry. We don't have a model on which to base the presentation of information about the topic, and so need to be careful that we are not creating a bigger notability for the subject than it already holds. There are issues to think about given Wikipedia's influence. SilkTork *YES! 11:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure what you mean. If readers try to infer notability by counting an article's footnotes, then they will be confused. Is that your concern? Melchoir (talk) 05:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime some thought could be given to:

  • reducing the celebrities' opinions,
  • incorporating the related issues into the first section,
  • increasing readability and flow,
  • and to perhaps making the reference sections more user friendly and compact.

Everything is open to discussion and negotiation, and I welcome nudges on my talkpage for matters that I may be neglecting. My views on the GA process and how I usually proceed are here. SilkTork *YES! 11:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

A few interesting books I turned up when researching:

There's a fair bit of information on where to position the toilet paper holder, and types of holder as well. SilkTork *YES! 14:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, is there any information on over/under in the last three? Or are you suggesting background material on the kind of holder that creates the issue? Melchoir (talk) 05:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a category for toilet paper - Category:Toilet paper - which contains this cute article Hotel toilet-paper folding. SilkTork *YES! 14:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

On hold

I like the article, though there are a couple of issues which need to be dealt with before it meets GA criteria.

  • Focus. The article needs to be more clearly focused on the topic. The views of celebrities, and related issues could be cut, and a general tightening so that material such as that on Tilt-A-Roll and the Amundsen-Scott research station is reduced.
  • MoS - the lead could be built up per WP:Lead
  • The presentation of the references is a matter of taste, and the current presentation is not against GA criteria; though the previous method used by the article may be more helpful to the general reader.
  • There is a strong reliance on newspaper items. I would like to see, if possible, better quality sources. I am uncomfortable passing this as reliably sourced at the moment. Some solid sources treating this topic more directly would be very helpful.
    • What action would you like to see taken to address this concern? Melchoir (talk) 05:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Stable. I feel the dispute is over, though waiting a little longer doesn't hurt.

I'm putting the article on hold for seven days to allow the above matters to be addressed or discussed. SilkTork *YES! 11:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm suddenly a little busy this week... I've left a few comments, and hopefully I'll get to the rest soon. On the article itself, I would like to try improving the lead and changing some of the bullet lists, but I can't promise any particular timetable. :-) Melchoir (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
OK. I'll extend this to the end of the month, and pop back then. Give me a ping or email me if there's something you'd like me to look at in the meantime. SilkTork *YES! 11:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

A few comments

I've superficially checked all the references and they mostly check out (i.e. the links go where the citation suggests they go, the resulting source is or appears to be the one cited, and the cited information plausibly appears to be supported by the sources). The only exceptions were the following, one of which had been removed from Factiva and the other seems to be a different article than what is intended?

  • Elliott, Carson (11 June 2006), "The proper thing: Position places so that meat is closest to diner, unless dishes display pictures", Augusta Chronicle: p. G02, Factiva AGCR000020060809e26b00004
    • That's really strange. At least I saved a copy. Melchoir (talk) 05:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeld, John (31 March 2010), "SMS feedback – March 31, 2010", Cape Argus, Factiva MEWCAP0020100401e63v00011, "A British loo paper manufacturer investigated whether it was more economical to run loo paper over the top or draw it from below. From below was the verdict."
    • That's the right ID, although it too seems to have been removed. Melchoir (talk) 05:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

For GA criteria my assessment would be that the lede needs work, and it fails the guidelines on list incorporation in the Noted preferences section; which seems like a trivia section in disguise. As a first cut on the lists I'd suggest removing all the listings for people who didn't say anything interesting enough to bother quoting, and then to further prune fictional characters (i.e. Marge Simpson). For the remainder an attempt should be made to incorporate it into the prose (not necessarily in that section, but possibly spread around where it makes sense); and leave at most 3–5 items in each list, and each entry in the lists should represent some unique point or view. Ideally the lists should be eliminated altogether. Note though that with relatively minor improvement to this area I would say the issue would be sufficiently borderline, and the GA criteria sufficiently lax, that this would not, in my opinion, be enough on its own to preclude the article from passing GA.

Minor updates: Marge Simpson was removed from "Noted preferences" here and re-added to "Context and relevance" here. Melchoir (talk) 08:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

For FA on the other hand, I would have wanted significant improvement to the prose—phrasings like “What surprises some observers, including advice columnist Ann Landers, is the extent to which people hold strong opinions on such a trivial topic” just make me shudder—and I would be quite concerned about the direct links to specific services (specifically Google Books and Factiva). The latter are convenient for verifiability, but I am skeptical of such “preferential” (for lack of a better word) treatment of specific services, particularly ones with direct or indirect commercial interest. In that more stringent process I would also be somewhat worried about the potential for original research and novel synthesis, but nothing specific that I can put my finger on right now. Not that any of this is at all relevant for GA.

Anyways, just a few drive-by comments since I happened to have a look at the article. Hopefully you will find them useful in further improving the article. Quite a good read, a wonderfully whimsical topic, and perfect for Wikipedia. Kudos! --Xover (talk) 11:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for those views which mainly echo mine. I am however still rather concerned about the sources, which, though they may support what is said in the article, are not in themselves either sufficiently reliable or deal sufficiently significantly with the topic. I have just been looking at an agony aunt opinion column of a local newspaper (Vernon Record) as a reliable source, which by itself is debatable; my main concern however is that the source is being used in conjunction with several others in order to create support for a generalised statement in the article. This is now knocking on the door of OR. Rather than the editor saying that some people hold one view while others hold another, I would like a source which says it. One reliable source which gives the summary, rather than the editor using what become several primary sources to make an interpretation. SilkTork *YES! 11:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree that there is a definite risk of novel synthesis here, but one would need to conduct a fairly thorough review of the sources versus the article text to determine whether such is in fact the case. Problematic synthesis is usually discovered in content disputes over specific points or passages, when such problems become fairly obvious. Discovering them in general for an entire article is… quite a bit of work. Perhaps the nominator, who is far more familiar with the sources, could take a critical look at the article with an eye towards finding any potential trouble spots? --Xover (talk) 11:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
SilkTork: the Vernon Daily Record reference is from Annie's Mailbox, a nationally syndicated column. And the statement "Over is generally the intended direction of viewing for the manufacturer's branding, so patterned toilet paper looks better this way.[1]" isn't a synthesis or interpretation; those four sources all make the same point. I beg of you, for similar concerns in the future, please open the discussion by asking a question rather than delivering a judgement. It turns out that I'm a human being, and accusing me of policy violations takes a toll on my health that is (1) quite unnecessary and (2) harsher than I suspect you realize. Melchoir (talk) 11:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Forgive me Melchoir, I was making an observation on the article in relation to the GA review not making any accusations of you. I'm sorry you have been hurt, that was not my intention at all. I do try to word my observations in a neutral and often indirect manner, and to balance any negative points with positive ones. I would prefer that the process is an enhancing one, and to that end I encourage discussion on points, as I am aware that there is a fair degree of interpretation. I am having difficulties with some aspects of the article, and one of those is that an accumulation of individual sources to deliver an overall viewpoint makes it appear as though Wikipedia (better word than editor) is delivering that overall viewpoint rather than the sources. The term "editor" wasn't meant to reflect on any individual, but on the entity behind the article - which is all of us working here at Wikipedia, myself included. I appreciate how you could have been hurt by that remark, and I again apologise and assure you that was never my intention. SilkTork *YES! 12:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate that! :-) Melchoir (talk) 04:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

End of the month

Well, August is ending. I've come around to agree with some of the principles expressed above, so here's what I think could be done before the next GAN:

  • Juggle the material in "Arguments" to remove the list style. Possibly incorporate quotes from the sources attesting these arguments. Add a short discussion of friction. Incorporate the last remaining external link to CurrentConfig.com.
  • Move details on methods in Georgia-Pacific surveys to footnotes; take the opportunity to remove list style.
  • Expand Themes with Burns as much as possible.
  • Expand on marriages in "As a problem".
  • Expand Rocky Hutson to be closer (but not equal) to Curtis Batts. If necessary, consider splitting out Batts into a new article.
  • Rearrange "Noted preferences" by type, starting with advice columnists; discuss professions asked by the media; export uncategorized opinions to other relevant areas of the article. Find another home for Klorolle, perhaps a new article.
  • Expand lead section to reflect above changes.

Please feel free to fail the article. When the above items are done, likely by me, it'll be renominated. Thanks, Melchoir (talk) 09:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I love the CurrentConfig.com link! (I'm probably biased anyway, as I am an over person.)
I think this can be made to meet GA criteria, though, as you note above, there is a bit of work and thought involved. There is also a temptation to be flippant and trivial because of the nature of the topic, and I feel that should be resisted as there is an interesting sociological aspect to this topic that could be diminished. Over reliance on tongue-in-cheek sources such as CurrentConfig.com, on magazine opinion columns, and on quotes from celebrities, reduces the topic, as does using cute images of kittens pulling on toilet paper.
I will close it as you suggest. Good luck with future development. SilkTork *YES! 15:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Re-write template added August 2010

Great article, just the sort of thing I would enjoy reading in an in-flight magazine. Not encyclopedic.--Utinomen (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Why? Melchoir (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Too much extraneous and irrelevant material, it is overkill. Is it an article that notes symmetry applies to toilet paper orientation or is it an article collecting data relating to toilet paper orientation? The article establishes that there is a symmetry issue. The "Survey results" section seems excessive - the majority prefer over give reference what more is needed? Likewise "Themes" could be incorporated with a section that includes Survey results. With "Solutions" the article seems to departs from sociology/psychology. "Noted preferences" is the trivia that fills popular magazines, I would be surprised to see this in a serious article -obviously I accept there is no rule says this has to be serious, is it felt this can only be a non-serious article. There is a lot of references to newpaper articles, which seemed to me this was not an established subject but the author has gone to the trouble of finding material to establish it. Indeed I think it would be interesting to see a version of this article without any of the newspaper referenced material. --Utinomen (talk) 19:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Strongly disagree, the article is very well written and not in the least like a popular magazine, being comprehensive and containing references is a strength, not to mention requirement, and there are sufficient references that explicitly establish the subject. The other content is directly relevant to the main subject and well supported as such. The reduction of the survey results segment to a simply statement that over is favoured by the majority would be sorely lacking in context, information and relevant details about the surveys themselves, which are a notable aspect of the subject in themselves and as such their inclusion is far from excessive. This is not a non-serious article and I really cannot understand this position.
It is not trivia, trivia is defined in relation to the subject, it is relevant and useful to the article to illustrate the extent and notability of the subject. Especially since in part it's this very notability that makes the subject notable in the first place if you see what I mean.Number36 (talk) 21:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Request clarification

In the arguments section, ot is states Under reduces friction when the roll is larger than a typical "single" roll, thus touching the inside of an older enclosure. - I have to say this does not seem obvious, or very clear to me. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad someone else complained about this bullet. :-) It's uncited, so I'll just remove it. I'm considering adding some text to the effect that friction is relevant to toilet paper usage, but this particular statement seems to be original research either way. Melchoir (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sex vs Gender

I reverted an IP's edits changing gender to sex. While I agree there is a difference, given that there does not appear to be any reason why having a penis makes you more likely to prefer it one way, it seems more likely it's a mindset and thus gender thing. However, the survey results may need clarification on whether it was gender or sex they separated by. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Poretz and Sonrod don't specify whether they asked "What is your gender?" or "What is your sex?" or some other question. The toilet paper table on p.34 just has M and F labels. The summary table on p.118 is titled "AGE & SEX". Burns uses "gender" exclusively. Melchoir (talk) 04:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't think this even makes a difference within the uncertainty margins of any such survey. If anyone is really bothered by this, just talk about male and female wherever possible, and "sex or gender" in one or two places. Alternatively, we could have a nice protracted edit war about this question to get into WP:LAME. Hans Adler 08:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Noted preferences

Can anyone think of a better name for this section? Having a preference is oxymoronic to the ambivalents listed. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Specialized

This may have been brought up before, but one of the main problems I see with the article is that it deals with a mundane topic in an overly specialized way and makes little effort to justify this to the reader. To put it in another way, readers might take the article more seriously if they understood why the topic deserves such a technical discussion in the first place. This has especially to do with the introductory paragraph.

Most other technical articles don't have this problem because they tend to address some known specialty whose topics people would expect to be discussed in detail. But when the article is about how to hang your toilet paper, readers might have a hard time understanding why it's relevant.

Comments?

Related: principle of least astonishment. – Acdx (talk) 03:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

We could add some statistics on the number of people who care about the issue from [12] and [13]. These sources are already used, for narrower purposes, in the body. Unfortunately, they're press releases written by Cottonelle, citing a survey commissioned by Cottonelle. I'm not sure how credible they are when they claim that X% of people care about a product that they just happen to be selling. :-)
Or... now that I read your comment again, volume isn't your concern -- you're asking for a description of why specialists such as sociologists, marketers, marriage counselors, advice columnists, and entertainers would care? I guess I take it for granted that if enough people approach a topic, some of them are bound to approach it from a specialized angle. But yes, the lead should probably address them explicitly.
By the way, the article seems to be getting more attention than usual today, and there's certainly a traffic spike. I'm curious, what's the deal? Melchoir (talk) 06:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's been linked to on a notable Belgian blog so perhaps that's the reason. --Martin Wisse (talk) 08:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Too much credit, I'm afraid. It was also mentioned on WikiEN-l. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 09:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
The "traffic spike" was small enough that it probably mostly came from my blog. :) -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 10:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I found another example of the problem I mean: Chicken hypnotism. I think the intro should at least try to convince the reader that the topic is somehow important and encyclopedic, or else the article may be hard to take seriously. Especially in the case of Toilet paper orientation, the sheer depth and detail to which the article later goes should somehow be justified to the reader by explaining the (apparent) importance of the problem.
You don't have to edit anything in there right now, but I thought I'd share my view on this.
I was going to say I don't know where the traffic is coming from either, but it seems we got the answer. – Acdx (talk) 08:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Graphics/Illustration

This image is relevant and pertinent, in my opinion. In chief, the illustration showing the differences in tearing mechanics is an aspect that hasn't been discussed in the article, as well as the differences in momentum exhaustion and stability in tearing. Perhaps the text could be edited, or possibly removed, to eliminate the bias.

http://www.dumpaday.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/toilet.jpg

99.224.98.35 (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Those illustrations seem to come from [14]. We'd need Chris Rugen, the author, to release them under a free license. That, or someone could independently create similar (but not copied) illustrations. Melchoir (talk) 03:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Other orientations

Just wanted to note that there are two other potential alternates; straight up and down, and straight out from the wall. I've seen an example of the former once; it's not ideal because the end tends to sag and partially unroll. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, though, since it makes it easier to find the end...

I've seen examples of the latter a few times, and it's mechanically simplest; a peg sticking out of the wall with the roll of paper slipped over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.27.158.160 (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

But what about the side ways orientation? It seems that there are many different orientations, but what makes us prefer one to the other? Is it our unconscious mind or do we knowing choose? We are never shown or taught which orientation is right, this shows that the philosophical theory of tabula rasa is not feasible and that we must already have innate knowledge and views which develop, but stay constant, as we grow. This will be the main reason that this discussion about toilet roll orientation has occurred... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.176.238 (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Heads up

Pun intended. This specific page was just featured on fark.com which has many, many (hundreds of thousands? More?) readers. Lots42 (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Some IPs already pointed that out earlier. Their comments were removed per WP:NOTFORUM. That's also why the article is protected now. SilverserenC 21:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
And before that, reddit.com: [15]. Which explains the traffic spike starting yesterday. Melchoir (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
This isn't the first time this has been on reddit, actually. There's been a couple times over the past year. It's rather old news. I don't understand the hype at this point. SilverserenC 21:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh, any stand-up comedian will tell you that a little bit of toilet humour always gets the audience's attention. HiLo48 (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
It's been all over the place yesterday, I was pinged about it on HN (which is unsual) --Errant (chat!) 10:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

if you hang your toilet paper vertically, how does it effect this issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.66.178 (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

OR, Refimprove tags

I'm removing these tags from the lead:

Feel free to tag individual paragraphs, or to explain the problem here. Melchoir (talk) 03:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

What is meant by "preference"?

What is meant by "preference"? For example, I think rolled over is more convenient and attractive, but since I own cats I have to install the paper rolled under. Perhaps the article should distinguish between preference and common practice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.57.236.27 (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Picture

The over picture is a clear-cut case of POV pushing. It looks and is intentionally portrayed as less visually appealing than the under picture, so much so that even the edge is bent and not smooth and flat as would be the most typical representation for any roll.

Seeing as a minority adheres to the under orientation, this ridiculous attempt at POV pushing in the face of any compelling evidence to back up the under orientation over the over orientation is absurd and needs to be rectified. A quick search brings up dozens of well suited, homley over toilet roll pictures. This is a clear attempt of under users to insert their against Wikipedia policy views into an article on the very top of the page. Change the picture immediately. 124.148.241.203 (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane

The solution is for an editor to take two photos of the same holder, merely reversing the orientation of the roll between photos. Therefore, no bias. Go for it! — Michael J 19:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
What about these?
  • under
    under
  • over
    over
--elya (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I want to make those smaller and use them as quotation marks. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Ha! DMacks (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Hahaha you made my day =)--84.57.171.212 (talk) 15:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Those pictures are perfect! I raised the same issue just over a year ago further up the page. (& lol at Quotation marks comment.)Number36 (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ Grant 1991b; Garton 2005; Mitchell & Sugar 2005a; Jarski & Jarski 2007.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Toilet_paper_orientation/Archive_1&oldid=1142311946"