Talk:Female urinal

Old Women

This article fails to address the difficulties old women would encounter in using such urinals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.242.214.225 (talk) 05:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Anyone not easily able to hover will have difficulties regardless of age.--Jusjih (talk) 02:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Third Gender

If third gender persons' anatomy does not differ from men's or women's, there is no need to make such dinstiction for unisex urinals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.242.214.225 (talk) 05:25, 17 March 2018‎ (UTC)

Excellent article

Hi, User:Lamilli this is a great article, thank you for creating it! I have never seen a new article get to such good quality in such a short space of time, so well done and thank you! If you want more inspiration for content, take a look here at this discussion forum where we have discussed female urinals in the past. - I've added a comment about menstruation, have a think about how best to include that aspect. Years ago when I spoke to a urinal salesperson about female urinals and about waterless urinals (they are usually called waterless urinals and not dry urinals) he said they found it difficult to conceptualise this due to the issue of menstrual blood, amongst other factors (greater need for privacy).EMsmile (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Improvements needed in urinal article now

Please edit and shorten the section on female urinals in the main article on urinals (Urinal#Urinals designed for women). Now that you have created a stand-along article, that part could be shrunk down to 1-2 paragraphs of just the main facts, in my opinion. Thanks.EMsmile (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Done. EMsmile (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Section about advantages needs trimming

I suggest that those advantages that related to all urinals is moved to the urinals article and that you focus here only on those aspects that are specific for female urinals. Otherwise we are doubling up the information, don't you think? EMsmile (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion to remove the image of a naked woman peeing

This photo seems a lot more relevant.

Someone recently deleted the image of the naked women peeing (the edit was reverted), but I agree with that person. It is unnecessary to show this graphic image here. It would fit better to the article on urination. The second image showing a woman peeing in the "skier position" makes more sense to keep as it relates to how female urinals are arranged. But I would put that image on the right side of the article do draw less attention to it. Can we agree on removing the image of the woman peeing viewed from the front? I find it distracting for this article; it is not adding any value. When a woman squats like that she can't use a urinal in that position anyhow. EMsmile (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The image illustrates the two positions described in the text, so I think it's relevant. I would not object to a less graphic version of the squatting position though if somebody can find one. Gatoclass (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

None of the urinals described in the article require a woman to squat like the one depicted urinating from the front. I think we could easily wikilink the word "squatting" with the Wikipedia article on squatting if someone doesn't know what squatting looks like. There are also similar images on the page about urination which is where they belong. If we really needed to show an image of a woman squatting we could also take an image from there, there is e.g. a less detailed schematic. By the way, compare the image used in the German version of the article: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frauenurinal Again, I think it has little relevance to how a female urinal would be used as they are not normally a hole in the ground (although that could be the case for squat toilets which could be converted to urinals, too). EMsmile (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

It seems more relevant to have a photo of a woman actually using a urinal, than a gratuitous photo of two women peeing with no urinal. The proposed necessity of illustrating the "skiier position" seems to me to be somewhat spurious.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you ·maunus, but again it might be hard to find a suitable photo. It's not as easy as showing a male (fully dressed) using a urinal (from the back) - you wouldn't want to show his penis, too - not necessary. That photo that you proposed is not of a female urinal but of a female using a male urinal by using a female urination device, right? That schematic with the German text (which someone else wanted to see deleted) is so far the best one I know of which shows how a women would be in the semi-squat or skiing position to use a female urinal. EMsmile (talk) 15:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

True, she is using a male urinal with a sort of funnel called a "urinella". ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't see what's overly graphic about this image. I don't think nudity should be an objection here. Plus, it's a painting! It has it's purpose in illustrating the prefered body position women make use of when urinating. Independent of the urinal models currently available. It's the "background" section. Plus: there have been urinals designed to be used in this position.--Lamilli (talk) 10:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Nudity is not an objection, gratuituous nudity is.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Lamilli, I really don't like your editing style on this article. You treat the article like you own it. Just now you have made a bunch of changes - effectively reverting earlier changes back to how you had it before - without even having the politeness to explain your edits in the edit summaries. You have put that image back in even though I would say there was more people against it than in favor of it here on the talk page; you seem to have been absent from this article for a while, or at least not made any changes - suddenly you come back and change everything how YOU like it without good explanations and without even trying to reach a consensus. Not nice! I am going to remove that image in question again. Also I will remove an unreferenced claim about these urinals becoming more common. Let's not have an edit war over this image, let's look for consensus on the talk page. EMsmile (talk) 15:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I had the impression that my revert was sufficiently explained here. The reason given for removing the image was that supposedly "None of the urinals described in the article require a woman to squat like the one depicted urinating from the front..." However, this is in fact not the case. There have been models developed that are used in this position and these are refered to in the text. The other objection was that the image would be "overly graphic". I seriously can't see why this would be case and it wasn't explained either. Anyway, I won't fight for that image. If there's a consensus against it, fine. It's not necessary - I agree on that. But I had the impression that the deletion was not properly explained either.--Lamilli (talk) 11:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. I thought the reasons given for deleting it were sufficiently clear from the conversation on this talk page. Seeing the front of the naked woman (pubic hair, undies, vagina) was just a bit too much when a more "modest" image (like a sideways view) would achiev the same thing. There is a new image now that was recently added by User:Bio-CLC. I am not sure it's so great either, as it doesn't show a woman using a urinal, but in this case she is totally naked which is also not realistic for peeing. User:Bio-CLC I don't understand why you don't add one of your photos of showing a fully dressed woman from the side using one of your low-cost squatting urinals? I think that kind of image would be perfect? Thanks for your recent copyedits by the way. EMsmile (talk) 10:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I removed this image according to the rationale given above.--Lamilli (talk) 09:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

should be included:

https://liquidgold.earth/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/TB_2735_Female-Urinals.pdf --Lamilli (talk) 08:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Done your request plus more. Globalizing further will be better.--Jusjih (talk) 02:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Media coverage links

This was under external links but these links should rather be incorporated as inline citations if they are important (I don't have time at the moment to go through them and check them):

• Berlin's new toilets: Would you use a women's urinal? - BBC
• Berlin addresses need for female urinals in public restrooms - Inquirer
• Gender-Neutral Toilets in Germany Give Women the Right to Pee Standing - German Pulse
• Berlin announces scheme for urinals for women - The Telegraph
• One Texan’s solution to the transgender bathroom battle: ‘All-gender urinals’ – The Washington Post
• Germany to Introduce Gender-Neutral Urinals For Men & Women - The Alex Jones Show EMsmile (talk) 02:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Removed poorly sourced information

I removed the phrase "may risk losing balance" from the section #Design and implementation because the provided reference is not a reliable source for this kind of information. Feel free to add it back if you can find a reputable medical article supporting this claim. Qzekrom (she/they • talk) 16:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I cannot agree with this revert [1]. The product is relevant, it has been featured in several international press articles. The text is written in a neutral language and it features a product relevant to this topic. --FHNW Basel (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)