This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Toilet paper orientation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3 |
|
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
Hi ,
I suggest this article to be merged into Toilet paper
-- Railfan01 ( talk) 20:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
The "further reading" section appears to be, with the exception of the engineers' study, random articles or books that mention toilet paper orientation at some point. It adds nothing to the article and does not provide places for the reader to find more information, which is its point. I propose to delete it entirely. Any thoughts? - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 21:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
These links and further reading suggestions are excessive so are being reviewed per Wikipedia:External_links#Maintenance_and_review. They do not appear to meet the requirements at WP:EL, failing WP:ELNO#1 at least. However, they may be of use to editors wishing to work on the article so they have been moved here. If, after examination, a link is found not to be useful it can be removed from this list. If, however, the link does prove useful, the first approach is to see if appropriate information can be summarised in the article, using the link as a reliable source if it meets the WP:RELIABLE criteria. Be aware that, per WP:ELBURDEN, none of these links should be returned to the article without first gaining consensus that it meets the requirements at WP:EL or Wikipedia:Further reading. SilkTork ( talk) 14:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |agency=
ignored (
help){{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |agency=
ignored (
help){{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |agency=
ignored (
help)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.
A particularly fascinating response came from a reader who found a university in the US conducted a study into the most economical toilet paper use. The six-month study found that when the toilet paper came over the front of the roll less was used than if the paper was pulled from the back.
See Talk:Toilet_roll_holder#Merge_Toilet_paper_orientation_to_Toilet_roll_holder. SilkTork ( talk) 14:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
There is material in the Uses in social studies section which appear more appropriate for the article on Social constructionism. It's probably a judgement call as to where that material is best placed, though as the section is essentially about social constructionism (and how people's views on toilet roll orientation can be a tool to help students understand social constructionism, and how it is one example in a number of others, such as "the orientation of cutlery in a dishwasher, the choice of which drawer in a chest of drawers to place one's socks, and the order of shampooing one's hair and lathering one's body in the shower") rather than about the toilet paper and its orientation, it would seem best placed in Social constructionism. SilkTork ( talk) 16:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
@ QueenofBithynia: I removed the OR tag. I think you should discuss that here. -- evrik ( talk) 13:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
In the article, a paragraph is written on the under position describing the benefits of using it. This would be fine if the over position also had a paragraph of similar length. However, it doesn’t, and that is something that needs to be addressed. People will gain more information on the under position and all they see on the over position is a mere patent. I understand if citations are needed to gain this data, but it is clearly a biased perspective on toilet paper orientation. Thank you for reading. Senomo Drines ( talk) 16:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
No mention is made of cats and the necessity of the under-position to prevent piles of tp on the floor. On the other paw, so many citations, notes, and further reading entries are reffed to press releases that a wikicane-cutting-machina may be necessary. — Neonorange ( talk to Phil) (he, they) 22:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC) —
I am disappointed that the article only contains information relating to rolls of toilet paper that are on horizontal holders. I have seen multiple instances of toilet paper rolls that are on vertical holders, and the holders themselves for sale in hardware stores. I'd be interested to see sections relating to the vertical holders and details of debates between the clockwise and counterclockwise orientation of the rolls upon them. This is not trivial but is a very present issue; Google "vertical toilet roll holder" to see how common they are. 2600:1700:EA01:1090:2101:5D44:C4A1:A5D1 ( talk) 18:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Toilet paper orientation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3 |
|
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
Hi ,
I suggest this article to be merged into Toilet paper
-- Railfan01 ( talk) 20:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
The "further reading" section appears to be, with the exception of the engineers' study, random articles or books that mention toilet paper orientation at some point. It adds nothing to the article and does not provide places for the reader to find more information, which is its point. I propose to delete it entirely. Any thoughts? - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 21:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
These links and further reading suggestions are excessive so are being reviewed per Wikipedia:External_links#Maintenance_and_review. They do not appear to meet the requirements at WP:EL, failing WP:ELNO#1 at least. However, they may be of use to editors wishing to work on the article so they have been moved here. If, after examination, a link is found not to be useful it can be removed from this list. If, however, the link does prove useful, the first approach is to see if appropriate information can be summarised in the article, using the link as a reliable source if it meets the WP:RELIABLE criteria. Be aware that, per WP:ELBURDEN, none of these links should be returned to the article without first gaining consensus that it meets the requirements at WP:EL or Wikipedia:Further reading. SilkTork ( talk) 14:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |agency=
ignored (
help){{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |agency=
ignored (
help){{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |agency=
ignored (
help)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.
A particularly fascinating response came from a reader who found a university in the US conducted a study into the most economical toilet paper use. The six-month study found that when the toilet paper came over the front of the roll less was used than if the paper was pulled from the back.
See Talk:Toilet_roll_holder#Merge_Toilet_paper_orientation_to_Toilet_roll_holder. SilkTork ( talk) 14:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
There is material in the Uses in social studies section which appear more appropriate for the article on Social constructionism. It's probably a judgement call as to where that material is best placed, though as the section is essentially about social constructionism (and how people's views on toilet roll orientation can be a tool to help students understand social constructionism, and how it is one example in a number of others, such as "the orientation of cutlery in a dishwasher, the choice of which drawer in a chest of drawers to place one's socks, and the order of shampooing one's hair and lathering one's body in the shower") rather than about the toilet paper and its orientation, it would seem best placed in Social constructionism. SilkTork ( talk) 16:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
@ QueenofBithynia: I removed the OR tag. I think you should discuss that here. -- evrik ( talk) 13:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
In the article, a paragraph is written on the under position describing the benefits of using it. This would be fine if the over position also had a paragraph of similar length. However, it doesn’t, and that is something that needs to be addressed. People will gain more information on the under position and all they see on the over position is a mere patent. I understand if citations are needed to gain this data, but it is clearly a biased perspective on toilet paper orientation. Thank you for reading. Senomo Drines ( talk) 16:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
No mention is made of cats and the necessity of the under-position to prevent piles of tp on the floor. On the other paw, so many citations, notes, and further reading entries are reffed to press releases that a wikicane-cutting-machina may be necessary. — Neonorange ( talk to Phil) (he, they) 22:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC) —
I am disappointed that the article only contains information relating to rolls of toilet paper that are on horizontal holders. I have seen multiple instances of toilet paper rolls that are on vertical holders, and the holders themselves for sale in hardware stores. I'd be interested to see sections relating to the vertical holders and details of debates between the clockwise and counterclockwise orientation of the rolls upon them. This is not trivial but is a very present issue; Google "vertical toilet roll holder" to see how common they are. 2600:1700:EA01:1090:2101:5D44:C4A1:A5D1 ( talk) 18:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)