Talk:Toilet paper orientation/Archive 3

Possible resource for text and images
I recently added http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3002112/Age-old-debate-toilet-paper-settled-patent-1891.html as an external link. I noticed that there are other available sources covering the patent documents coming to light as well. Upon reflection, it seems this info may be well worth noting somewhere in the article (where/how?). And also it occurs to me that some of the images (from 19th-century gov't documents) may be candidates for addition to Commons. Noting here in case someone else cares to address this before/if I 'get around to it'. --Kevjonesin (talk) 04:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Patent link: https://www.google.com/patents/US465588

Image (good resolution): https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pages/US465588-0.png (via preceding Google link, itself via HuffPost)

Embedded PDF @ United States Patent and Trademark Office

--Kevjonesin (talk) 05:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Uploaded image as: File:Toilet-paper-roll-patent-US465588-0.png --Kevjonesin (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/17/toilet-paper-actually-goes-over_n_6887724.html --Kevjonesin (talk) 10:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and added the patent image to the article in the 'Noted preferences#Over' subsection along with a referenced caption. --Kevjonesin (talk) 11:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Why use US465588? Beyond the linked article, I mean; 459516 is also Wheeler and predates 465588 by a few months (the above isn't his "original" but a design improvement concept). :Kendel (talk) 15:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

US272369 by same Sam Wheeler only 1883 and with opposite orientation.

Patent link: https://patents.google.com/patent/US272369

Image (good resolution): https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pages/US272369-0.png Dieſelmaus (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

List of people is getting ridiculous
The list of famous people and pseudo-celebrities who have written or tweeted or said something about this is getting ridiculous. It's a massive trivia pit. I would like to kill it, replacing it with a single paragraph saying that the topic has been commented on many well-known people over the years, often with tongue in cheek, and reference just a couple of them.

What do people think? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I say, go for it, DavidWBrooks. Liz  Read! Talk! 23:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that is a problem. --80.6.106.117 (talk) 09:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm slightly confused by the pronoun - do you support the idea of greatly reducing the list, or not? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, get rid of it. I don't even think you need a consensus here. You posted your comment over a month ago, and with the possible exception of the vague response from anon 80, there is no objection. Wikipedia tolerates a bit of trivia, but not endless lists of miscellaneous information. Some articles are trivia magnets, and this is on of them. In such cases, it's not enough that the actual trivia items is sourced. The notability or importance of the trivia should be sourced. And I see very little of that. Sundayclose (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, they're gone. This article is still waaaaay too long - it's more like an inside joke, or a parody of a wikipedia article, taking a non-issue seriously. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It was nominated for deletion, where it was overwhelmingly decided to keep. It has had a GA review, with most of the criteria judged to be fulfilled. Go figure! Sundayclose (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's definitely worth keeping - it just needs serious pruning, in my opinion (which is humble whether hung over or under). - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * When I'm hungover, sometimes I need lots of toilet paper in any orientation. :) Sundayclose (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Soc314: Wikipedia Critique an Article Assignment
This article is very informative but it is excessively long. The "Class and politics" and "Noted preference" section add information that is not relevant for this type of article. You've included a wide array of sources but the material that has been included from multiple tabloid news sources such as Daily Express adds unnecessary length without reason. If you were to cut these out and the obscure information they add you would shorten your article and make this a faster more focused read.

Mebauer2 (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes. Go ahead! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

SOC 314: Wikipedia Critique an Article Assignment
1) In one of the sections it says that positioning of the toilet paper depends on a few things and one them being cats. What about other animals? the orientation only matters when you have a cat? but not a dog? maybe this should say animals instead of specifically a cat.

2) In the solutions part of the article is says that there are solutions to this issue with having better technology and others say its human behavior but there is no source stating that these are the solutions or if the author just made it up on his own.

Brittanyarsh (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * If you folks are really a sociology class critiquing a wikipedia article as an assignment, you should choose a more serious article. This one is halfway to a joke; you're spending way too much time thinking about it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 02:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

SOC 314- Wikipedia Critique an Article Assignment
1) The line "One man advocates a plan under which his country will standardize on a single forced orientation, and at least one inventor hopes to popularize a new kind of toilet roll holder which swivels from one orientation to the other" is missing names. Neither the advocate nor the inventors names have been mentioned. Moonwalker25 (talk) 02:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you did not notice that both are identified in the footnote for that specific sentence. Therefore, it is not a WP:WEASEL or related problem. These individuals don't seem very notable (no evidence they are authorities in this area), so giving them more prominence as individuals could feel like excessive prominence on them as people. DMacks (talk) 05:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

2) The article fails to tie paragraphs together. Under the Context and relevance section, terms like sense of uniqueness, conflicts of values and moral issues do not relate to the topic of discussion- toilet paper orientation. It is confusing and needs some structure. Moonwalker25 (talk) 02:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Toilet Paper in Hollywood
How Hollywood depicts this debate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.148.68.77 (talk) 12:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Just Some Suggestions
After reading through this article I found that, while an interesting read, there are some small things that I believe could be improved.

1) Under the Survey Results subsection of Preferences when Bernice Kanner's book Are You Normal? is introduced, perhaps "a fourth" could be changed to an actual percentage if possible? I found it slightly unclear and out of place considering percentages are given for the other two options for the given survey.

2) Under the Survey Results subsection of Preferences I believe there should be some elaboration on what the Saint Boniface director meant when he said "I think there's been some cheating, though." Cheating in what way and for which side of the argument?

3) Under the Survey Results subsection of Preferences when the list of surveys and their results are given it may be better to include the number of participants of the 2004 Bathroom Confidential and perhaps even by whom it was conducted.

4) Under the Survey Results subsection of Preferences in the last line of the penultimate paragraph of the section when Cottonelle's survey results were being introduced, it may be better if the line was rewritten. At the moment it feels rather jagged and at first the percentages that are given have an unclear meaning. 74 percent of all participants or of just the ones that voted over? The line may be able to convey its meaning more easily if it was written in a different manner.

5) Under the Class and Politics subsection of Themes the teenager who's science fair project concluded that liberals are more likely to roll over while conservatives roll under was not named and perhaps should be.

MattDCJ (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Boy, you're taking this mildly-funny-joke-gets-beaten-to-death article way too seriously. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Giant Hoax
I signed this page up for deletion as this is a hoax about something that is blatant nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MinecraftPlayer2 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Obvious decline as out-of-process. This page has already been through WP:AFD where there was a conseneus "keep", and there are multiple WP:RS cited to demonstrate it is a notable topic for an article. DMacks (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed the hatnote. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Why delete? This is one of the great tissues of our time :-) Wastrel Way (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC) Eric

Two rolls in public restrooms??
The article has this: Another solution is to install two toilet paper dispensers, as is more common in public restrooms and hotels. Many public and workplace restrooms do have two toilet paper dispensers in each stall. But, I doubt the reason two are installed has to do with preferences for the "over/under orientation." After all, do the maintenance crews install one roll "over" and the other "under"? A worker may install both rolls in the orientation he/she prefers.

I think the reason for two rolls is to ensure an adequate supply while reducing waste. This will happen if users take paper from the smaller roll until it is depleted before taking some from the larger roll.

Also, dispensers holding large rolls are designed so they are mounted so the ends of the rolls are parallel to the walls of the stall. These have labels with instructions regarding orientation, I presume, because this is relevant to the mechanism for tearing the paper.

Can someone check the archives for the articles cited to see if the articles really supports what is supported above? SlowJog (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Good point. I removed the questionable statement; the articles seem unlikely to discuss motivation for institutional paper dispensing practices. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. SlowJog (talk) 02:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion
This really isn't necessary. ThePRoGaMErGD (talk) 14:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * You haven't actually nominated it for deletion under wikipedia's processes. But perhaps you're just expressing an opinion. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it’s not necessary, but it has been nominated before, with the consensus of keeping it, as mentioned in discussions above. It’s obviously a bit of a joke and I think Wikipedia can have some of that as most good things in life do. Smokegrass420 (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The article tiptoes along a razor's edge between embarrassment to the encyclopedia and exemplary treatment of a topic. Come to think of it, should we add a parameter tpo to Infobox person indicating orientation preference? Now, if you want to see truly stinky articles that should be wiped off the backside of Wikipedia, go here: Headlight flashing and Death threat. Eric talk 14:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC) (always over)
 * The article is fully sourced and complete. Your opinion is noted, and I disagree with you.  As a matter of fact, I am not alone.  See Prior AFD. And Articles for deletion/Toilet paper orientation (2nd nomination).  Cheers.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 15:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)