Talk:Pearly penile papules
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Genetic cause
editIs this problem hereditary ?
- It's not a problem unless you make it a problem. --Liebeskind (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Reapperance
editThe article doesn´t mention the probabilities of its reapperance, or rather does it reappear after treatment is finished ?200.55.135.211 (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Soldering iron
editWho in their right mind posted the soldering iron removal method? Some poor kid will try that and mutilate himself! That needs removed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.56.26.232 (talk) 10:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- One of the most stupid things I have ever seen put on Wikipedia. Removed. Geoff B (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- It appears we have 4chan to thank for that. 76.185.32.199 (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I added info and links about the genetic relationship of this to 'penile spines' in other species. It's just more evidence that this is a normal variant of human penises. I also changed the "treatment" section to "removal", since you can treat a disease but this is not a disease.
I have also added a "myths and misunderstandings" section to underline the dangers of self-treatment, which is discussed in the literature. I googled this topic, and there are a huge number of sites giving truly horrible self-mutilation advice to young and uneducated men who don't know that these are normal and non-pathological physical features. I shudder to think what damage they're doing to their penises. EdgarCarpenter (talk) 21:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Video
editThe recent replacement of the main image with a video has been undone because:
- The existing image is of high quality whereas the video is of lesser quality;
- Under WP:MEDICAL it is not the role of WP to help individuals who have hirsuties coronae glandis to better identify them;
- The existing image clearly depicts appropriately and sufficiently the subject matter;
- If readers wish to see more media, such as additional images or the video, there is a link at the bottom of the article to Wikimedia Commons category.
Incidence
editPrevious version of the article estimated incidence at "a quarter of adult men," using as a source the American Health and Beauty website, which itself did not cite a source. I have replaced that with 8 to 48 percent, citing a Medscape page which, in turn, cited the Int J STD AIDS. We actually mention that journal as a bulleted item in the References section, but the journal requires payment for access. At any rate, Int J STD AIDS and Medscape seem to me like a more rigorous source than AH&B. Of course, "8-48%" is a huge range and thus unlikely to be incorrect. Personally, having seen a lot of penises, I find any estimate > 10% a bit high, but that observation is both unreliable (selection bias, etc.) and OR. Peter Chastain (talk) 09:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Vestigial penile spines?
edit"They are usually considered as vestigial remnants of penile spines, sensitive features found in the same location in other primates." the Kingsley Lab [1]https://kingsley.stanford.edu/SpinesVsPapules.html states that they do not believe that the papules are related to penile spines due to them being made of different cell types and not having neural structures. Is this enough to remove the current claim that they are vestigial?
The Kingsley paper in question is https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0084258 Baculumwizard (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC)