This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Glans 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 |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello all. I've worked on this article to the point where I think it no longer rates as a stub. It still needs some work, and all suggestions and helpful edits are welcome. In particular, the article is in need of a few references. -- Esseh 22:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, so it's the 1st of May. Whooopee! Better still, I think I have finally finished this article. Please, all of you who have contributed (and I'll look thorugh the discussion list and contact you directly), this article needs a few things, and then I want to submit it for review. What it needs is:
Thanks, and if you don't want to respond here, write me on my talk page. Esseh 05:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I have just added a Biology project box, and changed the Sexuality box to reflect that this article needs attention. Rationale: I have greatly expanded and re-written this article, and it needs assessment for quality and importance from both projects. Thanks all Esseh 17:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Bollocks does it mean that.
Added Anatomy project box; same rationale. Esseh 18:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm reverting a large series of changes to this article for the following reasons:
Jakew 22:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
As I said below, I disagree.
Now that our little tirades are over, do you think you could discuss it in a civil manner before making massive cuts? Esseh 22:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I see no reason to revert Esseh's edits. Just as this is a comparative article, so are articles like Biology or Human. As for POVs or the neutrality of the content, I guess I don't have any knowledge on the subject. Jake and Esseh, please be careful from violating the WP:3RR policy; you might get blocked. — Anas talk? 06:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, in particular to Jakew. Frankly, your massive edits (and in particular cuts) to the article with no discussion beforehand strike one as a bit rude. Many of the changes you made were, in my opinion, valid. Others were not. I have reverted the whole of them, and will now attempt to replace the valid fixes you made. Thanks, and TALK to me! Esseh 22:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jakew. Thanks. I really don't think the reverting to a much earlier version is such a good idea. As I said above, this is intended largely as a comparative article - smoething which neither of teh other glans articles do. What I would suggest is adding a couple of "see main article" headings at the top, for those seeking more in-depth info about one or the other, for a start. Then, we can work on what you perceive to be POV. Sound reasonable? Esseh 22:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Jakew. You've reverted this to a stub. Have you even checked the articles on glans penis and glans clitoridis? They're little more than stubs themselves! So, how come you're not campaigning to cut them out, or merge them into this one? Second, why do I have to convince you, in particluar? As I understand it, there is a difference between being bold, and being arrogant (of course, that's my POV). Esseh 22:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
A comment from an "outsider": The primary location for material on the glans penis and clitoral glans should probably be in those articles. However, it seems that there is enough general commentary that transforming this article into a disambiguation page would a little much. I would suggest transferring the detailed information on the individual organs to the two "sub"-articles, and retain a brief, one paragraph summary here, in this article (using either {{ main}} or {{ details}} to direct readers to the primary articles on the glans penis and clitoral glans). Carom 19:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Normally I am all about jerking the citation needed spam from articles. This would be an exception:
"This organ was once thought to serve no function other than sexual arousal, but research is beginning to prove otherwise citation needed."
I think this merits more than just a "citation needed". How about what research is suggesting other functions may have been... and the citation. Otherwise this whole stanza could be omitted. -- JSAtkinson 11:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The image used is not an image of a normal glans. No normal glans looks all wrinkled like that. Clearly this is a glans that has been badly keratinized due to circumcision. Can we please replace it with an image of a normal (undamaged) glans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianbrettcooper ( talk • contribs) 15:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Glans 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 |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello all. I've worked on this article to the point where I think it no longer rates as a stub. It still needs some work, and all suggestions and helpful edits are welcome. In particular, the article is in need of a few references. -- Esseh 22:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, so it's the 1st of May. Whooopee! Better still, I think I have finally finished this article. Please, all of you who have contributed (and I'll look thorugh the discussion list and contact you directly), this article needs a few things, and then I want to submit it for review. What it needs is:
Thanks, and if you don't want to respond here, write me on my talk page. Esseh 05:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I have just added a Biology project box, and changed the Sexuality box to reflect that this article needs attention. Rationale: I have greatly expanded and re-written this article, and it needs assessment for quality and importance from both projects. Thanks all Esseh 17:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Bollocks does it mean that.
Added Anatomy project box; same rationale. Esseh 18:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm reverting a large series of changes to this article for the following reasons:
Jakew 22:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
As I said below, I disagree.
Now that our little tirades are over, do you think you could discuss it in a civil manner before making massive cuts? Esseh 22:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I see no reason to revert Esseh's edits. Just as this is a comparative article, so are articles like Biology or Human. As for POVs or the neutrality of the content, I guess I don't have any knowledge on the subject. Jake and Esseh, please be careful from violating the WP:3RR policy; you might get blocked. — Anas talk? 06:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, in particular to Jakew. Frankly, your massive edits (and in particular cuts) to the article with no discussion beforehand strike one as a bit rude. Many of the changes you made were, in my opinion, valid. Others were not. I have reverted the whole of them, and will now attempt to replace the valid fixes you made. Thanks, and TALK to me! Esseh 22:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jakew. Thanks. I really don't think the reverting to a much earlier version is such a good idea. As I said above, this is intended largely as a comparative article - smoething which neither of teh other glans articles do. What I would suggest is adding a couple of "see main article" headings at the top, for those seeking more in-depth info about one or the other, for a start. Then, we can work on what you perceive to be POV. Sound reasonable? Esseh 22:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Jakew. You've reverted this to a stub. Have you even checked the articles on glans penis and glans clitoridis? They're little more than stubs themselves! So, how come you're not campaigning to cut them out, or merge them into this one? Second, why do I have to convince you, in particluar? As I understand it, there is a difference between being bold, and being arrogant (of course, that's my POV). Esseh 22:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
A comment from an "outsider": The primary location for material on the glans penis and clitoral glans should probably be in those articles. However, it seems that there is enough general commentary that transforming this article into a disambiguation page would a little much. I would suggest transferring the detailed information on the individual organs to the two "sub"-articles, and retain a brief, one paragraph summary here, in this article (using either {{ main}} or {{ details}} to direct readers to the primary articles on the glans penis and clitoral glans). Carom 19:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Normally I am all about jerking the citation needed spam from articles. This would be an exception:
"This organ was once thought to serve no function other than sexual arousal, but research is beginning to prove otherwise citation needed."
I think this merits more than just a "citation needed". How about what research is suggesting other functions may have been... and the citation. Otherwise this whole stanza could be omitted. -- JSAtkinson 11:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The image used is not an image of a normal glans. No normal glans looks all wrinkled like that. Clearly this is a glans that has been badly keratinized due to circumcision. Can we please replace it with an image of a normal (undamaged) glans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianbrettcooper ( talk • contribs) 15:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)