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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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)
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)
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)
I know, I know, no OR -- but nevertheless one wonders whether the urge to a speedy delete here may be linked with the belief in a single right way to hang the roll. - Tenebris
Keep, the arguement between over vs. under is real enough to warrant an article. However I was disappointed not to see a reference to Dave Barry's statement on the subject. I think it was late 80s early 90s. -- Parajedi ( talk) 21:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
The fact of arguing about this is ridiculous, but it's real. As a teenager (30 years ago), I was actually yelled at by an adult for doing it "wrong." I replied with the dutiful-son version of "what the hell difference does it make?". The adult replied that "Ann Landers says so". It was a great growing-up moment for me, since I realized that adults could be credulous idiots. Jimcski ( talk) 21:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep. It's a modern equivalent of big-enders and little-enders; and if that was good enough for Swift, this is good enough for Wikipedia. ariwara ( talk) 21:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
First, let me introduce myself: I'm the person that vandalized this article by adding "Toilet paper orientation is a study about nothing, performed by people with nothing better to do, using grants funded by oblivious taxpayers" in the first line. I got a reply from "User Talk" saying that my edit was removed because it "did not appear to be constructive". WTF? So this article appears to be constructive? Delete it!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.25.165.2 ( talk) 22:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete 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)
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)
...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 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)
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)
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)
From various discussions: Melchoir ( talk) 22:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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)
...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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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]
Melchoir ( talk) 03:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
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)
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
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.
In the meantime some thought could be given to:
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)
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)
I like the article, though there are a couple of issues which need to be dealt with before it meets GA criteria.
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)
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?
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.
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)
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:
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I'm removing these tags from the lead:
{{
Or|date=April 2011}}
{{
Refimprove|date=April 2011}}
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"? 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)
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
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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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)
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)
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)
I know, I know, no OR -- but nevertheless one wonders whether the urge to a speedy delete here may be linked with the belief in a single right way to hang the roll. - Tenebris
Keep, the arguement between over vs. under is real enough to warrant an article. However I was disappointed not to see a reference to Dave Barry's statement on the subject. I think it was late 80s early 90s. -- Parajedi ( talk) 21:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
The fact of arguing about this is ridiculous, but it's real. As a teenager (30 years ago), I was actually yelled at by an adult for doing it "wrong." I replied with the dutiful-son version of "what the hell difference does it make?". The adult replied that "Ann Landers says so". It was a great growing-up moment for me, since I realized that adults could be credulous idiots. Jimcski ( talk) 21:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep. It's a modern equivalent of big-enders and little-enders; and if that was good enough for Swift, this is good enough for Wikipedia. ariwara ( talk) 21:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
First, let me introduce myself: I'm the person that vandalized this article by adding "Toilet paper orientation is a study about nothing, performed by people with nothing better to do, using grants funded by oblivious taxpayers" in the first line. I got a reply from "User Talk" saying that my edit was removed because it "did not appear to be constructive". WTF? So this article appears to be constructive? Delete it!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.25.165.2 ( talk) 22:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete 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)
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)
...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 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)
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)
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)
From various discussions: Melchoir ( talk) 22:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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)
...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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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]
Melchoir ( talk) 03:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
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)
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
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.
In the meantime some thought could be given to:
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)
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)
I like the article, though there are a couple of issues which need to be dealt with before it meets GA criteria.
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)
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?
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.
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)
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:
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I'm removing these tags from the lead:
{{
Or|date=April 2011}}
{{
Refimprove|date=April 2011}}
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"? 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)
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