Talk:Toilet paper orientation/Archive 1

Speedy as hoax?
This seems like a stealth advertising campaign linked to Cottonelle's "Roll Poll", which is in fact linked in the article. There have been advertisements about which way you "roll" toilet paper (check the web).M —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.64.224.128 (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

While I was pleasantly surprised to find such an article on WP, with seemingly deep analysis, I concluded that this article is most likely fake. None of the references are hyperlinked or googlable (or matched results are irrelevant). Inline citations seem to be circular. Seems like someone celebrates April Fools on 4th of July.

Please add template for deletion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.139.39.64 (talk • contribs)


 * It's a pretty trivial topic, I'll admit, but it's well-referenced (the hyperlinked references all seem to work, and I was 1-for-2 on finding print references online, granted I didn't check too many of them). I don't think it fits speedy criteria, though do take it to WP:AfD if you feel strongly that I'm mistaken. —BorgHunter (talk) 01:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm fortunate enough to be able to access Factiva from any computer, using a member's card from my local public library (which was free). Factiva's full-text search of newspaper archives is invaluable for researching inane topics! The document IDs are listed in the article's footnotes, so if you have access to Factiva, you can verify the references yourself.
 * I didn't systematically search for equivalent free URLs. Sometimes newspaper articles will also be available on the paper's website, or on Google News. If you find alternate, more accessible URLs, please add them!
 * Finally, if I cite a book, it means I was able to read the relevant passages through some combination of Google and Amazon previews. Some books that I couldn't preview online, but which are likely to contain additional material for the article, are listed in the "Further reading" section.
 * I'm not sure what "Inline citations seem to be circular" means. Melchoir (talk) 08:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's the OP again. I seem unable to find any of the references online, so a link to some would be useful. I have searched the title of a dozen refrences, the first result always being this page or Melchoir's sandbox. Excuse me if I am wrong, but I still think I was right.
 * I am sure this article should be given some "disputable" tag at least. Could someone look into this (other than the article's creator)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.139.34.106 (talk) 10:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I added a few more URLs to ones I could find. Others aren't on Google, but this is hardly surprising; many newspapers don't have their archives up for free, and some of these are to journal articles which definitely won't just be on Google. It's always a good idea to get more eyes checking the sources and all that if we can get them, but for a lot of these, we hoi polloi who are out of college and don't have access to fancy university search engines simply don't have access to some of these references. —BorgHunter (talk) 11:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks BorgHunter!
 * 93.139: Hopefully the new links give you at least some confidence in the validity of the remaining references. If you're still not satisfied, there are three options for further action I can think of:
 * You're right, there exists such a tag: Unlinked references. But it's not really appropriate for this article. Cleanup tags are a quick way to alert editors to a problem with an article, and to attract an organized response from third parties. In this case, a discussion has already been started and mitigations performed, so putting up a tag now would be rather pointless. Bottom line: if you add it, I'll remove it. :-)
 * We could easily create a Factiva template for use inside the "id" field of citations. This template would transform the existing plain text "Factiva dal0000020011207dmb702ey9" into something like "Factiva dal0000020011207dmb702ey9 ". This solution doesn't address the underlying difficulty of checking references, but it would perhaps be more transparent for concerned readers.
 * Finally, if there is a specific article you really want to read for yourself, you can ask WikiProject Resource Exchange for help. (This would require creating a user account to protect your e-mail address.)
 * Thanks, Melchoir (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact, I've implemented option 2. I'll give it a few days to settle before converting some of my other articles. Melchoir (talk) 06:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * OP: I tried to "find the (printed) sources online", and the first two random picks showed up on Googlebooks, and yes, the sources confirm what's in the article. Nothing to worry about here. East of Borschov 08:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Whether the sources exist or not, it's quite clearly a spoof ("A toilet seat left up: not ready to be sat upon"... purlease). The funniest thing about it is the fact that people are taking it seriously... HieronymousCrowley (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Votes
My vote is to delete. I have seen some trivial junk on W*, but this takes the cake. Maurice Fox (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you read the "Motivations for study" section? Melchoir (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There's a vote? (For the record, in the great words of Kofi Annan, "hell no".  This article made my day.) --an odd name 18:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep forever. This is why I love Wikipedia. I'd kill to get obscure articles and missives from the c19th and eons past. This will be more useful to historians in the future than a bound volume of the proceedings of Congress or whatnot. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Gareth E Kegg-that whats makes Wikipedia unique. Thank you-RFD (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep. Weird but relevant, it's Wikipedia in a nutshell. If we can make it verifiable and relevant, I mean. 204.69.139.16 (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

This article makes a mockery of the idea of a serious community-generated Internet encyclopedia. Delete. Yaush (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

If we have Sound of fingernails scraping chalkboard, we can have this. I do have to say, though, it puts a whole new spin on that "Wikipedia is not paper" aphorism. Daniel Case (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Since I don't accept your "if" clause, your conclusion is irrelevant. Yaush (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I know, I know, no OR -- but nevertheless one wonders whether the urge to a speedy delete here may be linked with the belief in a single right way to hang the roll. - Tenebris

Keep, the arguement between over vs. under is real enough to warrant an article. However I was disappointed not to see a reference to Dave Barry's statement on the subject. I think it was late 80s early 90s. --Parajedi (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The fact of arguing about this is ridiculous, but it's real. As a teenager (30 years ago), I was actually yelled at by an adult for doing it "wrong." I replied with the dutiful-son version of "what the hell difference does it make?". The adult replied that "Ann Landers says so". It was a great growing-up moment for me, since I realized that adults could be credulous idiots. Jimcski (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep. It's a modern equivalent of big-enders and little-enders; and if that was good enough for Swift, this is good enough for Wikipedia. ariwara (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

First, let me introduce myself: I'm the person that vandalized this article by adding "Toilet paper orientation is a study about nothing, performed by people with nothing better to do, using grants funded by oblivious taxpayers" in the first line. I got a reply from "User Talk" saying that my edit was removed because it "did not appear to be constructive". WTF? So this article appears to be constructive? Delete it!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.25.165.2 (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


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

Delete or Reduce and Merge with Toilet Paper. This kind of argument is inane and belongs on a comedy or offbeat wiki, notoriety may be established but content is without merit. Also reeks of viral marketing. Dvorachek (talk) 06:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete this!
It's a (mock?) discussion of something that is strictly a matter of personal taste, nothing more. As the old adage has it, "there's no accounting for taste" (or, as it's put in French, chacun à son goût), so the fact that people differ is simply not significant. This article no different in spirit from on about the fact that some people prefer chocolate ice cream over vanilla, and vice versa. Or that some people prefer lemon in their tea and others milk. Or that some men prefer boxers and others briefs. None of these preferences is worthy of Wikipedia coverage. Now, a good fact-filled article on the history of bum wiping, with cross-cultural comparisons, would be suitable; but this article comes nowhere near that. Floozybackloves (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If you come across a reliable source describing the history or the cross-cultural differences around this issue, by all means, please make it known! I certainly agree that such a source would be valuable. You can cite the source yourself, or you can add it to the "Further reading" section, or just mention it here, on the talk page.
 * Meanwhile, there are plenty of sources already that describe why the fact that people differ is significant. See the "Motivations for study" section. Melchoir (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

This page is intended as humor, or comic relief. 96.228.159.27 (talk) 19:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. The article very clearly isn't intended as humor or comic relief. This absolutely does not belong on the page.Number36 (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I know it's not intended as humor, I just made that proposition because I found the article uninformative but hilarious. 96.228.159.27 (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The Tag you proposed would indicate the article was intended for humour, which if you don't think it is, seems not really founded in anything. The article is informative, did you know real reasearch had been done into the question, that the majority prefers it to hang forward, any of the specific relevent opinions put forward and so on. The subject matter may seem slightly burlesque in it's serious treatment of what you consider a trifle, but it's certainly a real and valid subject, in point of fact, that people do treat something trivial as an important subject for discussion, and apparently feel quite strongly about it, is part of what makes this notable.Number36 (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Epistemology
I added the Not Notable tag to draw attention to this article which, if it were in print, would be written on toilet paper. 115 sources does not a banquet make - there is almost no significance in the subject except as possible a footnote to the Toilet paper article. Darcyj (talk) 23:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The references by Burns and Sinrod/Poretz are already enough to establish notability in the sence of Notability. Melchoir (talk) 23:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Material to add
From various discussions: Melchoir (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Dave Barry
 * Under makes it easier to re-roll tail end
 * Over reduces premature tearing in gravity-fed multiple-roll systems

Toddlers
What I thought was the most obvious issue isn't mentioned even once: When toddlers or babies are first able to reach the toilet paper, their instinct to explore often makes them unroll the entire roll onto the floor. That can happen with either orientation, but especially with "over", because a downward batting motion at the roll is more physiologically natural than an upward motion. So with kids under 2 or 3, the only answer is "under". Only after they get bigger do the other considerations matter. See this and this for instance, and note that some people have a similar problem with cats. Art LaPella (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've added toddlers to with this edit. My impression from the sources is that the cat argument is more widespread than the toddler argument, but I was able to find one published instance in a letter to the editor of Esquire. Thanks, Melchoir (talk) 22:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Ramifications
I hope this will be supplemented by further articles on related and similarly fascinating topics, such as folding vs. wadding, number of sheets used, and the all-important subject of texture preferences! I'll be watching.... Sca (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I for one don't plan on writing them. :-) I haven't done the research on those topics, so I can't say whether or not enough nontrivial coverage exists to fill an article. If you find any information, feel free to add it to the main Toilet paper article; if enough content accumulates there, it can be split off later. Melchoir (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering that texture preferences drive utilitarian mass-produced choices in everything from carpets to papers and the high fashion industry alike, and are thus relevant to a significant percentage of the global economy? - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.193 (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Posible snips
"although North Korean officials have argued that Kim is not, in fact, a dictator." and the "A toilet seat left up: not ready to be sat upon" pic certianly ad humor but I'm not really sure they are justifable from an encyclopedic POV.©Geni 21:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree, I'd suggest removing/rephrasing. Great article by the way Melchoir, read all of it.. Pim Rijkee (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks!
 * The dictator line is kind of a dual-purpose instrument. Sure, humor is the reason why I like it. But it also provides relevant commentary on the topic of its paragraph. I'd prefer to keep the line if at all possible.
 * The toilet seat caption I feel less strongly about; I honestly didn't expect it to be read as humorous. Do you have a suggestion for rephrasing it, in a way that still explains its relevance? Melchoir (talk) 22:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep the dictator line, only because one would expect it to end with "woman" instead. --an odd name 00:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, image caption is better this way. No problem with the dictator line here. Pim Rijkee (talk) 11:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed it. The citation was completely unrelated to the previous bit of text.©Geni 17:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I wept
...at the brilliance of this article. Upon reading it angels descended from the heavens and bestowed upon me the softest, most plyest rolls of toilet paper. Truly a gift from the porcelain god. Thank you, Melchoir, for enriching my life.-- §hanel  23:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * See, now this is the kind of comment we need more of. ;-) Please remember to stay hydrated as the tears fall -- safety first! Melchoir (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have not read an article of this magnitude of brilliance in many a year. Amazing stuff! ~ Riana ⁂ 03:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Gravity-fed dispensers
While I agree with the above that this article certainly is one of the most trivial I've yet seen on WP (probably should have 80% cut and be a section in the toilet paper page), I have an observation that I don't see mentioned in the text: in most public restrooms, when there is more than one roll, the roll in use is invaribly the lower one (so that the new one can fall into place when the old one is empty). This results in that if the roll is oriented 'under', the weight of the currently-used roll prevents it from rolling easily, therefore it tends to tear easiler, resulting in little bits of shreaded paper instead of sheets. The same problem occurs in gravity-fed paper towel bins or napkin dispensers (solution in those is do not fill them up all the way). CFLeon (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting point! I've added it to the list. For the other thing, I'd just like to note Manual of Style (summary style) and Toilet paper. Thanks, Melchoir (talk) 00:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Flappying
In reference 34, is that a typo for flapping? I don't have access to the source to verify it (although the full quote does turn up one non-WP google hit).  — Soap  —  00:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have the source in front of me at the moment, but I believe "flappying" is correct. I probably copy-pasted it directly from the Factiva page. Melchoir (talk) 00:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ...Confirmed, "flappying". Melchoir (talk) 03:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Author compensation?
Wouldn't an obvious question be to ask whether the OP received any compensation, monetary or otherwise for writing the article. Is the OP employed by a major manufacturer of toilet paper or an advertising/publicity firm retained by one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.88.4 (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A fair question. The answer is no. Melchoir (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Then I have no objection —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.88.4 (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Ann Lander's inclusion in the 'Under' list
Surely the discussion of her position elsewhere on the page reflects that her opinion changed, or was at least not as definite as when she made the statement which is quoted to justify her inclusion in the list. Such as the description of changing the advice in her column from under to over in response to feedback, and from the last comment she made in her final column. Otherwise more than excellent article and strongly disagree with those above who are against it.121.72.145.99 (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is some ambiguity there, but I'm not too worried. My interpretation of those two statements is that they were her attempts at mollifying her readers, while her initial statement, her statement on Oprah, the 1998 column, and the Wizda reference reflect her personal opinion. This interpretation is supported by the "In spite of the fact... I still prefer" quote. The Wizda reference is the most elaborative of the way she feels, so it's a good fit for the list. Melchoir (talk) 03:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm, yes, now I read it again that does seem clearer with the 1998 column. Though she does seem to have changed her position in so far as that is stated to be a personal preference rather than advice or an opinion on a 'correct' method (which fits with the list I know). Not sure what her statement was on Oprah, it doesn't seem to be in the article. Ah well, my apologies, carry on :)Coincidently just woke up to my radio alarm with the radio host raising this very subject as the subject for discussion. The orientation I mean, not Ann Lander's inclusion on the list in this article; now that would've been weird.121.72.145.99 (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Hopefully that wasn't a coincidence, and I've made a few radio hosts' lives easier in their endless search for material. ;-)
 * Anyway, I'll quote a section of the Oprah transcript: "Well, I like it hanging--in my house, we hang it so that it's down along the wall. Thank you. Thank you. But the--the majority..." and later on: "Well, Oprah, it's all right. I'm used to--I'm used to being a minority." Melchoir (talk) 03:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Sometimes logic and taking one step back and actually looking at what the device/item tries to do is the best step... but then again, this is Wikipedia.. where common sense is sentenced to death, even if it's backed by years of personal experience and/or general consensus (which has not been scientifically proven, because no-one has the time to perform these nonsensical experiments..) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.96.165.209 (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source, or is this from personal analysis? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

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


 * sigh*... I guess this was pointless... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.96.165.209 (talk) 03:26, 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)


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

The pictures


Anybody else think the picture of the over orientation at the start of the article seems a lot less appealing compared to the picture of the under orientation with its warm colours, homely feel, fancy wooden holder and a nice full roll. The over one seems barren, cold, and untidy by contrast, the way it's shot so you can see the cardboard tube and the paper hanging over creased or ripped rather than hanging neatly straight down, the back and middle ground hazy and out of focus, it doesn't even seem like as good a quality of paper, just seems quite uneven to me in the depictions.Number36 (talk) 23:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (copying the pictures to the right)
 * I don't know, the over photo has some nice qualities: it's simpler, with fewer distractions from the subject. The soft shadows on the wall, and the out-of-focus part of the holder, are just enough to suggest where the wall is, without making the wall the subject. That crease in the paper that you call untidy provides a certain dynamic feel, and it's just begging to be grabbed. Melchoir (talk) 03:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I guess there is a degree of subjectiveness about it, but it still looks rather 'before shot' to me, compared with the under orientation's friendly warm tones and fancy gold adorned roller. I think the cold colours/soft focus brings an association of the cold and a frosty morning chill in the air, which isn't great when sitting down in the place where the toilet paper is if you see what I mean :) . The focus of the shot doesn't really seem to be on the paper being over the top to me either, but more on the end of the roll. There's a very nice shot here, maybe isn't free I know, but something along those lines would be good.Number36 (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's a nicer shot, CC licensed:  Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've already searched through all the free images on Flickr. :-) 3895680445 is a good scene, but it's all about the bright red holder. We'd have to crop that out... and speaking of cropping, the end of the paper is awfully close to the bottom of the frame. The side of the roll is showing some kind of brownish discoloration... is that water damage?
 * If it were available, 1234.jpg would be pretty good, except it's an uncomfortably close crop as well, and the whites are even more blown out than the existing photo.
 * Number36: I see what you mean about the focus on the end of the roll. I don't think I agree, but I can certainly see how it can be viewed that way. Melchoir (talk) 08:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Symmetry
While some have argued that broken symmetry is the essence of beauty, the beauty of this simple edit serves as refutation in part. Kudos. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 16:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this edit restoring symmetry isn't bad itself! Melchoir (talk) 03:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed Baughman
I'm removing this paragraph:  George Baughman, an entrepreneur who sells lobster and moose-themed toilet paper to tourists in Maine, was inspired to think about toilet paper packaging by the over-under debate in his family. He therefore named his business "Roll-Rite Paper Products".

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

Further studies
Interesting article.

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

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


 * ;-) Well, I for one plan to move on to other areas. I wouldn't want to wake up one morning to find that I'd become the toilet paper guy! You wanna give it a shot? Melchoir (talk) 08:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The most important use of toilet paper is currently a poor stub. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Some references...
 * http://www.collegehumor.com/article:1725972
 * http://deadspin.com/5424415/sitters-vs-standers--the-great-wipe-hope
 * http://www.poopreport.com/Poll/stand_or_sit.html
 * http://www.metafilter.com/87536/Sitters-Vs-Standers-The-Great-Wipe-Hope
 * 99.94.146.29 (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 99.94.146.29 (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 99.94.146.29 (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Re-write template added August 2010
Great article, just the sort of thing I would enjoy reading in an in-flight magazine. Not encyclopedic.--Utinomen (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why? Melchoir (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Too much extraneous and irrelevant material, it is overkill. Is it an article that notes symmetry applies to toilet paper orientation or is it an article collecting data relating to toilet paper orientation? The article establishes that there is a symmetry issue. The "Survey results" section seems excessive - the majority prefer over give reference what more is needed? Likewise "Themes" could be incorporated with a section that includes Survey results. With "Solutions" the article seems to departs from sociology/psychology. "Noted preferences" is the trivia that fills popular magazines, I would be surprised to see this in a serious article -obviously I accept there is no rule says this has to be serious, is it felt this can only be a non-serious article. There is a lot of references to newpaper articles, which seemed to me this was not an established subject but the author has gone to the trouble of finding material to establish it. Indeed I think it would be interesting to see a version of this article without any of the newspaper referenced material. --Utinomen (talk) 19:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree, the article is very well written and not in the least like a popular magazine, being comprehensive and containing references is a strength, not to mention requirement, and there are sufficient references that explicitly establish the subject. The other content is directly relevant to the main subject and well supported as such. The reduction of the survey results segment to a simply statement that over is favoured by the majority would be sorely lacking in context, information and relevant details about the surveys themselves, which are a notable aspect of the subject in themselves and as such their inclusion is far from excessive. This is not a non-serious article and I really cannot understand this position.
 * It is not trivia, trivia is defined in relation to the subject, it is relevant and useful to the article to illustrate the extent and notability of the subject. Especially since in part it's this very notability that makes the subject notable in the first place if you see what I mean.Number36 (talk) 21:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Request clarification
In the arguments section, ot is states Under reduces friction when the roll is larger than a typical "single" roll, thus touching the inside of an older enclosure. - I have to say this does not seem obvious, or very clear to me. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm glad someone else complained about this bullet. :-) It's uncited, so I'll just remove it. I'm considering adding some text to the effect that friction is relevant to toilet paper usage, but this particular statement seems to be original research either way. Melchoir (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sex vs Gender
I reverted an IP's edits changing gender to sex. While I agree there is a difference, given that there does not appear to be any reason why having a penis makes you more likely to prefer it one way, it seems more likely it's a mindset and thus gender thing. However, the survey results may need clarification on whether it was gender or sex they separated by. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Poretz and Sonrod don't specify whether they asked "What is your gender?" or "What is your sex?" or some other question. The toilet paper table on p.34 just has M and F labels. The summary table on p.118 is titled "AGE & SEX". Burns uses "gender" exclusively. Melchoir (talk) 04:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I don't think this even makes a difference within the uncertainty margins of any such survey. If anyone is really bothered by this, just talk about male and female wherever possible, and "sex or gender" in one or two places. Alternatively, we could have a nice protracted edit war about this question to get into WP:LAME. Hans Adler 08:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Comments?

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


 * We could add some statistics on the number of people who care about the issue from and . These sources are already used, for narrower purposes, in the body. Unfortunately, they're press releases written by Cottonelle, citing a survey commissioned by Cottonelle. I'm not sure how credible they are when they claim that X% of people care about a product that they just happen to be selling. :-)


 * Or... now that I read your comment again, volume isn't your concern -- you're asking for a description of why specialists such as sociologists, marketers, marriage counselors, advice columnists, and entertainers would care? I guess I take it for granted that if enough people approach a topic, some of them are bound to approach it from a specialized angle. But yes, the lead should probably address them explicitly.


 * By the way, the article seems to be getting more attention than usual today, and there's certainly a traffic spike. I'm curious, what's the deal? Melchoir (talk) 06:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it's been linked to on a notable Belgian blog so perhaps that's the reason. --Martin Wisse (talk) 08:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Too much credit, I'm afraid . It was also mentioned on WikiEN-l. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 09:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The "traffic spike" was small enough that it probably mostly came from my blog. :) -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 10:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I found another example of the problem I mean: Chicken hypnotism. I think the intro should at least try to convince the reader that the topic is somehow important and encyclopedic, or else the article may be hard to take seriously. Especially in the case of Toilet paper orientation, the sheer depth and detail to which the article later goes should somehow be justified to the reader by explaining the (apparent) importance of the problem.


 * You don't have to edit anything in there right now, but I thought I'd share my view on this.


 * I was going to say I don't know where the traffic is coming from either, but it seems we got the answer. – Acdx (talk) 08:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Heads up
Pun intended. This specific page was just featured on fark.com which has many, many (hundreds of thousands? More?) readers. Lots42 (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Some IPs already pointed that out earlier. Their comments were removed per WP:NOTFORUM. That's also why the article is protected now. Silver  seren C 21:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And before that, reddit.com: . Which explains the traffic spike starting yesterday. Melchoir (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't the first time this has been on reddit, actually. There's been a couple times over the past year. It's rather old news. I don't understand the hype at this point. Silver  seren C 21:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, any stand-up comedian will tell you that a little bit of toilet humour always gets the audience's attention. HiLo48 (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's been all over the place yesterday, I was pinged about it on HN (which is unsual) --Errant (chat!) 10:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

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

OR, Refimprove tags
I'm removing these tags from the lead: Feel free to tag individual paragraphs, or to explain the problem here. Melchoir (talk) 03:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * The solution is for an editor to take two photos of the same holder, merely reversing the orientation of the roll between photos. Therefore, no bias. Go for it! — Michael J  19:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What about these?


 * --elya (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I want to make those smaller and use them as quotation marks. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha! DMacks (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hahaha you made my day =)--84.57.171.212 (talk) 15:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Those pictures are perfect! I raised the same issue just over a year ago further up the page. (& lol at Quotation marks comment.)Number36 (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)