![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
{{ editsemiprotected}} example of a penis deviation: please show a bild of a dick, which is not straight but curved upwards (most common). the curve is moderat, so there are no problems to have sex. [[File:penisdeviation2.jpg|25px]]
Bully2 ( talk) 21:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
This Wikipedia page contains highly inappropriate images. The photos on this page are unnecessary, drawings would SUFFICE! I have visited other pages related to the human body--including a page mentioned in a news article "nude children" and I am absolutely appalled by what I have discovered. Wikipedia is permeated with pornographic images and I strongly urge you to purge Wikipedia of said images. The images were highly offensive to me, not to mention the fact that children have access to this site.
Please show some propriety and remove these graphic and pornographic images immediately.
Sincerely, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Happilymarried555 ( talk • contribs) 20:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Ther should be a picture comparing a childs and adults penis
I have read the guidelines but I'd like to point out that Wikipedia may not have a legal responsibility, nor may its members feel any responsibility about the images on this article. However, it would behoove Wikipedia and its users to realize that this site is accessible to children in libraries and schools starting from as young as 5. Should it be? That's arguable, and ultimately the responsibility of the institutions. However, Wikipedia does nothing to advertise that this site may not be suitable to children to the general public, and images like those on this site or on ejaculation slip under the radar. Everyone I have talked to thought it just had drawings like other encyclopedias, but when they discovered the true content they were shocked and worried about what access their children had at schools and libraries. I know you're not going to change a thing, I'm just saying you could take a little social responsibility here guys. 24.9.48.69 ( talk) 20:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
It is not rocket science to work out that most of the pending changes to this article are going to be unproductive. Let's hope that this is taken into account at the end of the trial.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}}
Whoa boys! Just came across this article straight from a completely innocuous one about farming methods and wasn't expecting all the explicit pornography. I thought I had merely opened up an enclycopaedic article about anatomy but was half sickened by it all - can't imagine how some of the young girls would feel! Definitely those hardcore photos need to replaced by (if anything) less explicit illustrations more appropriate for educational purposes. Please!
![]() |
Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
Dude, You are correct. This i not supposed to be there. Bussygirl i —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bussygirl i ( talk • contribs) 13:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
There is no sch thing as an offensive penis. It can be wielded in an offensive manner, but the penis itself is a shy, nocturnal creature rarely sighted away from the bush. I think a prudish attitude is far more harmful, so I pray that the good citizens of Wikipedia never give in to this sort of puritanical pressure. It's the very fact that Wikipedia does not censor such images that makes it a better resource than those other encyclopedias you mentioned. If we show not reality but simply a drawing of reality, are we not guilty of hiding the truth? And where do you draw the line? You find photographs offensive, but somebody else could be horrified by a drawing. Then when we ban drawings and only have descriptions, somebody will be offended by the description. And then what do we have? Nothing, that's what!
Nevart ( talk) 13:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Glancing at the history, it looks like the page has been blanked quite a few times. This makes me think that it is possibly offensive to some, so i'd like to suggest that we go easy with the illustrations, especially the photographic ones, like the one which shows the development of an erection. Drawings might be more acceptable, if such an illustration must be here. -- Jerome Potts ( talk) 21:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey, what's that bulge at the base of a dog's penis ? I don't suppose that's the prostate gland ? Someone refers to it as "os penis" (penile bone) in Talk:Penis/Archive 1#Is this specific to human penises? . -- Jerome Potts ( talk) 00:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I made the article about Pizzle in RuWiki. I would be glad of any information about the animal penes :) -- UeArtemis ( talk) 19:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the answers ; the bulbus glandis is not mentioned anywhere in this article, its page not linked. ??? -- Jerome Potts ( talk) 21:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
You can make a translation from Russian article about the structure of animal penises, if you want. Юе Артеміс ( talk) 23:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}}
Hey I have a picture of a better erection than that guy, please let me know if I can send the picture!
Carlyrose91 (
talk)
19:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
You can use this pic of a normal-curved-penis at the topic "Normal variations" subtopic "curvature" - so all can see, that a curved penis is just normal (its the same pic on the german site "penisdeviation"). What's your opinion? - sorry, i don't know how to reduce the size of the pic: File:Penisdeviation2.jpg Bully2 ( talk) 21:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
84.163.185.161 ( talk) 21:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
why do all these peoples pictures of ____ have barely any pubic hair? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.154.216 ( talk) 21:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC) beats me. here, try this one. File:HNI 0037.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob tedson ( talk • contribs) 14:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
oh my god the pic on the beginning of the page is almost an assault on the eyes! is that thing only ONE TESTICLE?!?! change it with something more normal
I believe this article should have medical diagrams only, the front picture is kind of an assault on the eyes. Medical diagrams only would be much more appropriate for this article. -- Poohunter ( talk) 05:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm tired of guys showing off their wares on this site. A diagram would work fine, but noooo... Gotta put it online. -- DrStrangelove64 ( talk) 20:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
It's the subject of the article, there are(real)pictures of vulva's in the vulva article, there are pictures of teeth in the teeth article. So unless you intend to hunt up a medically accurate sketch for every article related to human(or animal) bodies, then I think we should just leave it be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.69.154.100 ( talk) 05:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't have an issue with the picture of a penis here. It's the other 9 that is the issue. Their is only two photos of the Vagina and ten of the Penis. Um, I think we can figure out what the penis looks like after a couple pictures.
"The penis (plural penises, penes) is an external sexual organ of male humans. It is also more generally a biological feature of male animals including both vertebrates and invertebrates"
Erm, doesn't it make more sense for the general biological definition to take precedent over the fact that it's an organ present in humans? Just a suggestion. The vagina article, for example, doesn't even mention humans specifically in its introduction. I think the opening sentence sounds pretty funny, so I thought I'd point it out. I don't think any anatomy article regarding an organ nonspecific to humans starts like this. 208.75.23.66 ( talk) 19:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Now it says "The Brooke Oaks" (penis). Someone should fix that.
Closed. The result was Split. − Jhenderson 777 00:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
The article seems a bit human-centric at the moment. This would be acceptable if the article's title were Human Penis; however, right now, the title is just Penis.
My proposal is to create a separate page ( Human Penis) and move all the human penis-related stuff there. The main penis article would be about animal penises in general. See ( feces/ human feces) for a precedent. Stonemason89 ( talk) 00:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Stonemason89, I couldn't agree more! The public should be aware that penises are not limited to only homo sapiens. The world would be far less diverse if only human reproduction was possible. It is critical, now more than ever as global biodiversity continues in a downward spiral, that we educate the public about all organisms on our beloved earth and their reproductive organs. Such ignorance and prejudice against animal genitalia will not be tolerated ANY longer.
Regards, a very concerned citizen.
I support the move. You might want to use a proper proposed move template though. -- Koolabsol ( talk) 08:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Brilliant! Let me know if you need any help or money as I am an expert in the field and would be happy to lend my expertise. Me and my staff (no pun intended) would be delighted to hold a fundraiser as we do these kind of events all the time. Good luck on your endeavors!
I am willing to help you, though since the article in question is pretty important you will need to acquire more approvals before we can make the move. Asking for opinions at the village pump would be a great way to get started. There is also a process where you can request someone who has knowledge and expertise to help you with anything Wikipedia related. If you need help finding them I can help you but I want you to try and find them on your own. :) Also, Avc69. If you wish to contribute money then please donate to Wikipedia, [1]. If you wish the contribute expertise, then you are free to edit the article. Just make sure to follow the guidelines! Happy editing. -- Koolabsol ( talk) 15:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I was actually thinking about this before. This should definitely be done. RdCrestdBreegull ( talk) 21:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to be out of place but I disagree. Create another page about the human penis if you want, perhaps under male sexuality, but what I think is needed here is to add more about those of other animals. We need an article on just the penis and it needs to include human.
Rather than just move it ALL, select portions where there is no comparrison with other organisms and move that.
Euc (
talk)
07:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I disagree too. The article is only 40 kilobytes long. Add in whatever bits you think are missing, or are under represented (with refs, of course per WP:V), then, when the article gets too big ( WP:SIZE), we can look at it and split off whatever sections cleave off best into sub-articles. See WP:SUMMARY. -- Nigelj ( talk) 17:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I agreed at first but then I saw the two comments above me and I agree with them. We just need to add what isn't there. I'd be happy to help so just let me know.-- 81.233.116.164 ( talk) 08:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest information about animal penises be added to this article and then another discusion afterwards to see if it should be split. 86.13.252.106 ( talk) 00:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I support completely. -- Jeffwang16 (Talk) (Contributions) (Email me!) 22:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to be immature, but let's split the penis! (Tee Hee) The Doomsday Machine! (Blastoff!) 23:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Strong support - there are many different forms of penis and it would be great if the article could cover them all, rather than just our own. I will help with the split if I can. SmartSE ( talk) 22:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Why hasn't this article been split up already, I understand it isn't a huge article but splitting it up will encourage more research to the individual subjects. Otherwise it'll get the same traffic and not expand or diversify at all. '''Aryeonos''' ( talk) 04:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Are you morons really so homophobic that you can't tolerate pictures of penises in an article about them? Get over yourselves and bring back the cocks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.32.170.142 ( talk) 18:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to edit that line, if possible, or have someone with more power edit it for all of us. Thanks!
Proposed edit: In domestic animals, the penis is divided in three parts:[4]
Following the split out to human penis, we should really merge Penis (animal) into this article. SmartSE ( talk) 00:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Jhenderson 777 16:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. -- j⚛e decker talk to me 17:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Agree. Zujua ( talk) 06:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
"The Icelandic Phallological Museum is devoted entirely to collecting penis specimens from all sorts of land and sea mammals."
Its just stuck in a section no relivance.(27.33.106.50)
This article seems to have a focus on the sizes of various penises throughout the animal kingdom, rather than on the functions of penises themselves--as it stands now, the article should really be called "Penis size", or the information here should be moved to such an article. Perhaps more physiological and evolutionary information would be a plus? Zujua ( talk) 06:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I added a cleanup tag for this reason, hopefully this article can be greatly expanded. (Pun not originally intended) Zujua ( talk) 06:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC) The average penis size is 5 to 7 inches
Before any more edit wars occur, please bear in mind that this is not an article about the human penis. This was split off into Human penis, as the hatnote says. There does not really need to be an image of the human penis in this article, so the edit warring is missing the point.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
mention the average, it's 1-4 inches 70.49.81.20 ( talk) 04:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
This page has one of those horrid "clean up" templates; the "specifics" given is "see discussion". I'm not seeing any discussion about "clean up" here. Is the tag necessary? Joefromrandb ( talk) 12:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I believe the redirect at the top of the article is not easily found, especially for amateur readers of wikipedia. I have added a wikilink to the image which will make it easier to find the human penis article. Furthermore, i feel the mammal sub-section could do with an image anyway. Pass a Method talk 17:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Today by chance I noticed that the leading photo of this article is actually ambiguous, it seems to be a small collection of Whale's penis, not "from different species". Per the description on the file page, it's probably from Minke whale. Is there any biological expert who can clarify the information? Or maybe someone can go to Icelandic Phallological Museum and find out? Moscowsky -talk- 11:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
What? Has biology suddenly been rewritten, and the classification revised? Why the heck are we making an arbitrary distinction like this in the article - and note that it puts Homo sapiens firmly in the non-domesticated category. While I can see the attractions of such a classificatory scheme, I'm not sure that it is entirely appropriate. Mammals are mammals, and I don't think that there is much evidence that the males of domesticated species have any particular notability regarding their 'intromittent organs' that deserves separate treatment from the rest of us mammalian males. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 01:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
The lede tells us that the penis "is a reproductive, intromittent organ that additionally serves as the urinal duct in placental mammals". Is there any logical reason why it shouldn't actually tell the reader what 'intromittent organ' means, rather than expecting them to click on a Wikilink to find out? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 01:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I think JohnRichfield's recent expansion of the lede [2] is a real step forward. — MistyMorn ( talk) 09:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Maybe a live mammal's penis photo can be added into the "Mammals" section. Currently there seems only a photo of five unidentified specimens at the top, and a black-white insect photo at the bottom, isn't this a little weird? Moscowsky -talk- 08:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I would like to request that WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE be given due attention, in particular the following passages -
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. For example, a photograph of a trompe-l'œil painting of a cupcake may be an acceptable image for Cupcake, but a real cupcake that has been decorated to look like something else entirely is less appropriate. Similarly, an image of an unidentified cell under a light microscope might be useful on multiple articles, so long as there are no visible differences between the cell in the image and the typical appearance of the cell being illustrated. Articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material near relevant text. If the article is about a general subject for which a large number of good quality images are available, (e.g., Running), editors are encouraged to seek a reasonable level of variety in the age, gender, and race of any people depicted. Adding multiple images with very similar content is less useful. For example, three formal portraits of a general wearing his military uniform may be excessive; substituting two of the portraits with a map of a battle and a picture of its aftermath may provide more information to readers. You should always be watchful not to overwhelm an article with images by adding more just because you can.
. 93.96.148.42 ( talk) 20:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should this article mention the human penis, or should it just link to Human penis and make no reference to it at all? 93.96.148.42 ( talk) 01:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
more detail, and we wouldnt have complaining, so why just put a diagram that shows all the parts without being graphic? 184.98.114.65 ( talk) 21:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Why don't we just solve the problem with edit warring here by creating a small gallery, as I did some years ago here, with images of several types of penises, including human? Or do we take some sort of delight in fighting over dicks?! A gallery with thumbnail images would end the matter once and for all. -- Brangifer ( talk) 19:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Imo, we could usefully illustrate a variety of animals, as described in the text (as already started with the elephant and bean weevil illustrations), accompanied perhaps by a detailed anatomical drawing. My 2c... I'd just like to see this page properly encyclopedic rather than an evident casualty of edit warring. — MistyMorn ( talk) 18:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Let's start by adding what we find to this gallery, and then decide which ones to keep. When it looks good, we add it. Here are some of your suggestions: "s-shaped (bull etc), barbed (cat), bifurcated (kangaroo), echidna? I see we already have a good hermaphrodite image of snails." -- Brangifer ( talk) 21:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Some photos in this gallery are not close-up view, like the giraffe, horse, and baboon. Those photos should be either cropped or renewed. Moscowsky -talk- 09:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
So why not add some to the article? 87.194.46.83 ( talk) 05:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
A lot of the content of the page is, at least, beyond nursery school level. — MistyMorn ( talk) 20:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closing the RFC as no consensus - there is a slight leaning towards oppose, but not enough for consensus. Even if the oppose was the majority, it would result in no material changes to the page. Tiggerjay ( talk) 20:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
At the moment this articles lead picture is a foto of whale's penes in glass bottles. I think it should be of a human penis, or at any rate a living penis, and a human penis photo included. This is opposed on the grounds that photographs of real penes in the Penis article would be obscene and WP:UNDUE, and that there is a separate article human penis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.46.83 ( talk • contribs) 05:11, 23 October 2012
Look folks, how long is this paralysis by RFC going to (you should excuse the expression in context) drag on? If it were not nominally under discussion I should long ago have installed the giraffe picture boldly. But nothing is being discussed that has not been chewed to rags. This reflects very badly on somebody or something. If we were a committee designing a horse the camel would long since have died of old age. I feel my boldness growing, so how about it? JonRichfield ( talk) 08:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
This RFC is achieving very little. Please suggest a specific image for the infobox, and see if a consensus can be found to use it.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
{{ editsemiprotected}} example of a penis deviation: please show a bild of a dick, which is not straight but curved upwards (most common). the curve is moderat, so there are no problems to have sex. [[File:penisdeviation2.jpg|25px]]
Bully2 ( talk) 21:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
This Wikipedia page contains highly inappropriate images. The photos on this page are unnecessary, drawings would SUFFICE! I have visited other pages related to the human body--including a page mentioned in a news article "nude children" and I am absolutely appalled by what I have discovered. Wikipedia is permeated with pornographic images and I strongly urge you to purge Wikipedia of said images. The images were highly offensive to me, not to mention the fact that children have access to this site.
Please show some propriety and remove these graphic and pornographic images immediately.
Sincerely, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Happilymarried555 ( talk • contribs) 20:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Ther should be a picture comparing a childs and adults penis
I have read the guidelines but I'd like to point out that Wikipedia may not have a legal responsibility, nor may its members feel any responsibility about the images on this article. However, it would behoove Wikipedia and its users to realize that this site is accessible to children in libraries and schools starting from as young as 5. Should it be? That's arguable, and ultimately the responsibility of the institutions. However, Wikipedia does nothing to advertise that this site may not be suitable to children to the general public, and images like those on this site or on ejaculation slip under the radar. Everyone I have talked to thought it just had drawings like other encyclopedias, but when they discovered the true content they were shocked and worried about what access their children had at schools and libraries. I know you're not going to change a thing, I'm just saying you could take a little social responsibility here guys. 24.9.48.69 ( talk) 20:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
It is not rocket science to work out that most of the pending changes to this article are going to be unproductive. Let's hope that this is taken into account at the end of the trial.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}}
Whoa boys! Just came across this article straight from a completely innocuous one about farming methods and wasn't expecting all the explicit pornography. I thought I had merely opened up an enclycopaedic article about anatomy but was half sickened by it all - can't imagine how some of the young girls would feel! Definitely those hardcore photos need to replaced by (if anything) less explicit illustrations more appropriate for educational purposes. Please!
![]() |
Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
Dude, You are correct. This i not supposed to be there. Bussygirl i —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bussygirl i ( talk • contribs) 13:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
There is no sch thing as an offensive penis. It can be wielded in an offensive manner, but the penis itself is a shy, nocturnal creature rarely sighted away from the bush. I think a prudish attitude is far more harmful, so I pray that the good citizens of Wikipedia never give in to this sort of puritanical pressure. It's the very fact that Wikipedia does not censor such images that makes it a better resource than those other encyclopedias you mentioned. If we show not reality but simply a drawing of reality, are we not guilty of hiding the truth? And where do you draw the line? You find photographs offensive, but somebody else could be horrified by a drawing. Then when we ban drawings and only have descriptions, somebody will be offended by the description. And then what do we have? Nothing, that's what!
Nevart ( talk) 13:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Glancing at the history, it looks like the page has been blanked quite a few times. This makes me think that it is possibly offensive to some, so i'd like to suggest that we go easy with the illustrations, especially the photographic ones, like the one which shows the development of an erection. Drawings might be more acceptable, if such an illustration must be here. -- Jerome Potts ( talk) 21:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey, what's that bulge at the base of a dog's penis ? I don't suppose that's the prostate gland ? Someone refers to it as "os penis" (penile bone) in Talk:Penis/Archive 1#Is this specific to human penises? . -- Jerome Potts ( talk) 00:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I made the article about Pizzle in RuWiki. I would be glad of any information about the animal penes :) -- UeArtemis ( talk) 19:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the answers ; the bulbus glandis is not mentioned anywhere in this article, its page not linked. ??? -- Jerome Potts ( talk) 21:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
You can make a translation from Russian article about the structure of animal penises, if you want. Юе Артеміс ( talk) 23:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}}
Hey I have a picture of a better erection than that guy, please let me know if I can send the picture!
Carlyrose91 (
talk)
19:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
You can use this pic of a normal-curved-penis at the topic "Normal variations" subtopic "curvature" - so all can see, that a curved penis is just normal (its the same pic on the german site "penisdeviation"). What's your opinion? - sorry, i don't know how to reduce the size of the pic: File:Penisdeviation2.jpg Bully2 ( talk) 21:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
84.163.185.161 ( talk) 21:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
why do all these peoples pictures of ____ have barely any pubic hair? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.154.216 ( talk) 21:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC) beats me. here, try this one. File:HNI 0037.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob tedson ( talk • contribs) 14:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
oh my god the pic on the beginning of the page is almost an assault on the eyes! is that thing only ONE TESTICLE?!?! change it with something more normal
I believe this article should have medical diagrams only, the front picture is kind of an assault on the eyes. Medical diagrams only would be much more appropriate for this article. -- Poohunter ( talk) 05:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm tired of guys showing off their wares on this site. A diagram would work fine, but noooo... Gotta put it online. -- DrStrangelove64 ( talk) 20:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
It's the subject of the article, there are(real)pictures of vulva's in the vulva article, there are pictures of teeth in the teeth article. So unless you intend to hunt up a medically accurate sketch for every article related to human(or animal) bodies, then I think we should just leave it be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.69.154.100 ( talk) 05:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't have an issue with the picture of a penis here. It's the other 9 that is the issue. Their is only two photos of the Vagina and ten of the Penis. Um, I think we can figure out what the penis looks like after a couple pictures.
"The penis (plural penises, penes) is an external sexual organ of male humans. It is also more generally a biological feature of male animals including both vertebrates and invertebrates"
Erm, doesn't it make more sense for the general biological definition to take precedent over the fact that it's an organ present in humans? Just a suggestion. The vagina article, for example, doesn't even mention humans specifically in its introduction. I think the opening sentence sounds pretty funny, so I thought I'd point it out. I don't think any anatomy article regarding an organ nonspecific to humans starts like this. 208.75.23.66 ( talk) 19:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Now it says "The Brooke Oaks" (penis). Someone should fix that.
Closed. The result was Split. − Jhenderson 777 00:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
The article seems a bit human-centric at the moment. This would be acceptable if the article's title were Human Penis; however, right now, the title is just Penis.
My proposal is to create a separate page ( Human Penis) and move all the human penis-related stuff there. The main penis article would be about animal penises in general. See ( feces/ human feces) for a precedent. Stonemason89 ( talk) 00:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Stonemason89, I couldn't agree more! The public should be aware that penises are not limited to only homo sapiens. The world would be far less diverse if only human reproduction was possible. It is critical, now more than ever as global biodiversity continues in a downward spiral, that we educate the public about all organisms on our beloved earth and their reproductive organs. Such ignorance and prejudice against animal genitalia will not be tolerated ANY longer.
Regards, a very concerned citizen.
I support the move. You might want to use a proper proposed move template though. -- Koolabsol ( talk) 08:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Brilliant! Let me know if you need any help or money as I am an expert in the field and would be happy to lend my expertise. Me and my staff (no pun intended) would be delighted to hold a fundraiser as we do these kind of events all the time. Good luck on your endeavors!
I am willing to help you, though since the article in question is pretty important you will need to acquire more approvals before we can make the move. Asking for opinions at the village pump would be a great way to get started. There is also a process where you can request someone who has knowledge and expertise to help you with anything Wikipedia related. If you need help finding them I can help you but I want you to try and find them on your own. :) Also, Avc69. If you wish to contribute money then please donate to Wikipedia, [1]. If you wish the contribute expertise, then you are free to edit the article. Just make sure to follow the guidelines! Happy editing. -- Koolabsol ( talk) 15:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I was actually thinking about this before. This should definitely be done. RdCrestdBreegull ( talk) 21:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to be out of place but I disagree. Create another page about the human penis if you want, perhaps under male sexuality, but what I think is needed here is to add more about those of other animals. We need an article on just the penis and it needs to include human.
Rather than just move it ALL, select portions where there is no comparrison with other organisms and move that.
Euc (
talk)
07:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I disagree too. The article is only 40 kilobytes long. Add in whatever bits you think are missing, or are under represented (with refs, of course per WP:V), then, when the article gets too big ( WP:SIZE), we can look at it and split off whatever sections cleave off best into sub-articles. See WP:SUMMARY. -- Nigelj ( talk) 17:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I agreed at first but then I saw the two comments above me and I agree with them. We just need to add what isn't there. I'd be happy to help so just let me know.-- 81.233.116.164 ( talk) 08:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest information about animal penises be added to this article and then another discusion afterwards to see if it should be split. 86.13.252.106 ( talk) 00:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I support completely. -- Jeffwang16 (Talk) (Contributions) (Email me!) 22:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to be immature, but let's split the penis! (Tee Hee) The Doomsday Machine! (Blastoff!) 23:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Strong support - there are many different forms of penis and it would be great if the article could cover them all, rather than just our own. I will help with the split if I can. SmartSE ( talk) 22:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Why hasn't this article been split up already, I understand it isn't a huge article but splitting it up will encourage more research to the individual subjects. Otherwise it'll get the same traffic and not expand or diversify at all. '''Aryeonos''' ( talk) 04:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Are you morons really so homophobic that you can't tolerate pictures of penises in an article about them? Get over yourselves and bring back the cocks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.32.170.142 ( talk) 18:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to edit that line, if possible, or have someone with more power edit it for all of us. Thanks!
Proposed edit: In domestic animals, the penis is divided in three parts:[4]
Following the split out to human penis, we should really merge Penis (animal) into this article. SmartSE ( talk) 00:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Jhenderson 777 16:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. -- j⚛e decker talk to me 17:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Agree. Zujua ( talk) 06:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
"The Icelandic Phallological Museum is devoted entirely to collecting penis specimens from all sorts of land and sea mammals."
Its just stuck in a section no relivance.(27.33.106.50)
This article seems to have a focus on the sizes of various penises throughout the animal kingdom, rather than on the functions of penises themselves--as it stands now, the article should really be called "Penis size", or the information here should be moved to such an article. Perhaps more physiological and evolutionary information would be a plus? Zujua ( talk) 06:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I added a cleanup tag for this reason, hopefully this article can be greatly expanded. (Pun not originally intended) Zujua ( talk) 06:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC) The average penis size is 5 to 7 inches
Before any more edit wars occur, please bear in mind that this is not an article about the human penis. This was split off into Human penis, as the hatnote says. There does not really need to be an image of the human penis in this article, so the edit warring is missing the point.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
mention the average, it's 1-4 inches 70.49.81.20 ( talk) 04:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
This page has one of those horrid "clean up" templates; the "specifics" given is "see discussion". I'm not seeing any discussion about "clean up" here. Is the tag necessary? Joefromrandb ( talk) 12:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I believe the redirect at the top of the article is not easily found, especially for amateur readers of wikipedia. I have added a wikilink to the image which will make it easier to find the human penis article. Furthermore, i feel the mammal sub-section could do with an image anyway. Pass a Method talk 17:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Today by chance I noticed that the leading photo of this article is actually ambiguous, it seems to be a small collection of Whale's penis, not "from different species". Per the description on the file page, it's probably from Minke whale. Is there any biological expert who can clarify the information? Or maybe someone can go to Icelandic Phallological Museum and find out? Moscowsky -talk- 11:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
What? Has biology suddenly been rewritten, and the classification revised? Why the heck are we making an arbitrary distinction like this in the article - and note that it puts Homo sapiens firmly in the non-domesticated category. While I can see the attractions of such a classificatory scheme, I'm not sure that it is entirely appropriate. Mammals are mammals, and I don't think that there is much evidence that the males of domesticated species have any particular notability regarding their 'intromittent organs' that deserves separate treatment from the rest of us mammalian males. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 01:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
The lede tells us that the penis "is a reproductive, intromittent organ that additionally serves as the urinal duct in placental mammals". Is there any logical reason why it shouldn't actually tell the reader what 'intromittent organ' means, rather than expecting them to click on a Wikilink to find out? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 01:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I think JohnRichfield's recent expansion of the lede [2] is a real step forward. — MistyMorn ( talk) 09:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Maybe a live mammal's penis photo can be added into the "Mammals" section. Currently there seems only a photo of five unidentified specimens at the top, and a black-white insect photo at the bottom, isn't this a little weird? Moscowsky -talk- 08:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I would like to request that WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE be given due attention, in particular the following passages -
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. For example, a photograph of a trompe-l'œil painting of a cupcake may be an acceptable image for Cupcake, but a real cupcake that has been decorated to look like something else entirely is less appropriate. Similarly, an image of an unidentified cell under a light microscope might be useful on multiple articles, so long as there are no visible differences between the cell in the image and the typical appearance of the cell being illustrated. Articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material near relevant text. If the article is about a general subject for which a large number of good quality images are available, (e.g., Running), editors are encouraged to seek a reasonable level of variety in the age, gender, and race of any people depicted. Adding multiple images with very similar content is less useful. For example, three formal portraits of a general wearing his military uniform may be excessive; substituting two of the portraits with a map of a battle and a picture of its aftermath may provide more information to readers. You should always be watchful not to overwhelm an article with images by adding more just because you can.
. 93.96.148.42 ( talk) 20:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should this article mention the human penis, or should it just link to Human penis and make no reference to it at all? 93.96.148.42 ( talk) 01:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
more detail, and we wouldnt have complaining, so why just put a diagram that shows all the parts without being graphic? 184.98.114.65 ( talk) 21:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Why don't we just solve the problem with edit warring here by creating a small gallery, as I did some years ago here, with images of several types of penises, including human? Or do we take some sort of delight in fighting over dicks?! A gallery with thumbnail images would end the matter once and for all. -- Brangifer ( talk) 19:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Imo, we could usefully illustrate a variety of animals, as described in the text (as already started with the elephant and bean weevil illustrations), accompanied perhaps by a detailed anatomical drawing. My 2c... I'd just like to see this page properly encyclopedic rather than an evident casualty of edit warring. — MistyMorn ( talk) 18:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Let's start by adding what we find to this gallery, and then decide which ones to keep. When it looks good, we add it. Here are some of your suggestions: "s-shaped (bull etc), barbed (cat), bifurcated (kangaroo), echidna? I see we already have a good hermaphrodite image of snails." -- Brangifer ( talk) 21:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Some photos in this gallery are not close-up view, like the giraffe, horse, and baboon. Those photos should be either cropped or renewed. Moscowsky -talk- 09:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
So why not add some to the article? 87.194.46.83 ( talk) 05:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
A lot of the content of the page is, at least, beyond nursery school level. — MistyMorn ( talk) 20:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closing the RFC as no consensus - there is a slight leaning towards oppose, but not enough for consensus. Even if the oppose was the majority, it would result in no material changes to the page. Tiggerjay ( talk) 20:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
At the moment this articles lead picture is a foto of whale's penes in glass bottles. I think it should be of a human penis, or at any rate a living penis, and a human penis photo included. This is opposed on the grounds that photographs of real penes in the Penis article would be obscene and WP:UNDUE, and that there is a separate article human penis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.46.83 ( talk • contribs) 05:11, 23 October 2012
Look folks, how long is this paralysis by RFC going to (you should excuse the expression in context) drag on? If it were not nominally under discussion I should long ago have installed the giraffe picture boldly. But nothing is being discussed that has not been chewed to rags. This reflects very badly on somebody or something. If we were a committee designing a horse the camel would long since have died of old age. I feel my boldness growing, so how about it? JonRichfield ( talk) 08:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
This RFC is achieving very little. Please suggest a specific image for the infobox, and see if a consensus can be found to use it.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)