Talk:Toilet paper orientation

mergy

Hi ,

I suggest this article to be merged into Toilet paper

--Railfan01 (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

That article links to this one. This article is so huge that merging it into another article would require killing 90% of this article ... which might not be a bad idea ... but in general, I'd think a merger is not necessary. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Much of this article is fluff from non-serious magazine and newspaper articles, and some material is barely on-topic. Looking through the talkpage history, the existence of the article is somewhat contentious, with some folks feeling that the topic is a little too light-hearted for an encyclopedia, and the current tone and content of the article somewhat supports that view. I think the topic is noteworthy, and I think there exists the possibility of making a decent encyclopedic article on the topic; however, as it currently stands, the route to trimming into worthwhile content and then merging that into Toilet paper, is also possible, and may be the easier (and more appropriate?) route. SilkTork (talk) 10:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Further reading section is useless

The "further reading" section appears to be, with the exception of the engineers' study, random articles or books that mention toilet paper orientation at some point. It adds nothing to the article and does not provide places for the reader to find more information, which is its point. I propose to delete it entirely. Any thoughts? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I have trimmed it extensively. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I have separated the non-used links from the References section into an External links section. This now reveals that there is an excessive amount of unused links. I have not examined the links against the WP:EL criteria, however, even if they all meet the criteria, there are too many of them, and they would need to be whittled down to a more reasonable number - perhaps two or three at most, given the simplicity of the subject matter. SilkTork (talk) 10:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. As you've noted, this article has long been a semi-joking mess. I occasionally walk through, swinging a wiki-machete, but much more is needed. I haven't looked at it in a while; ye gods that list of external links is ridiculous. I thought I had trimmed it more than that! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

They were hidden in the References section: [1]. I have a preference setting which indicates when there is no link pointing to a citation so I could more easily identify them and move them out. But it still took a while as there were so many of them! Looking again now, I note that some are Further reading rather than External links. I will likely move the whole lot to the talkpage shortly, as the ones I am checking do not meet WP:EL criteria.

I am also looking at the Survey section. The bulk of that section is essentially saying that around 60% of people prefer the over position, but it is saying it over and over again. While the Context and relevance section is not a direct discussion on the topic, but a discussion on sociological thinking and psychology which may use toilet paper orientation as an example of the way people make choices, and such discussion could be placed in pretty much any article which is used as an example, such as cola, baseball, sock and cutlery drawers, etc. There is a degree of original research in that section. I raised these concerns 11 years ago when doing the GA review. I think the topic has potential, but this article does not match that potential. SilkTork (talk) 03:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Be bold! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

External links and further reading

These links and further reading suggestions are excessive so are being reviewed per Wikipedia:External_links#Maintenance_and_review. They do not appear to meet the requirements at WP:EL, failing WP:ELNO#1 at least. However, they may be of use to editors wishing to work on the article so they have been moved here. If, after examination, a link is found not to be useful it can be removed from this list. If, however, the link does prove useful, the first approach is to see if appropriate information can be summarised in the article, using the link as a reliable source if it meets the WP:RELIABLE criteria. Be aware that, per WP:ELBURDEN, none of these links should be returned to the article without first gaining consensus that it meets the requirements at WP:EL or Wikipedia:Further reading. SilkTork (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• Answer Fella (January 2007), "Famous Birthdays, Girlfriend Advice & a Brief History of Toilet Paper", Esquire, vol. 147, no. 1, p. 52, retrieved 11 July 2010
• Blow, Steve (7 November 1990), "This survey asks questions we care about", The Dallas Morning News, p. HOME FINAL 23A, Factiva dal0000020011207dmb702ey9
• Braun, Jenifer D. (28 August 2003), "Makeover host trades roles", The Star-Ledger, p. 71, Factiva NSL0000020030828dz8s0008a
• Breithaupt, Tim (2003), 10 Steps to Sales Success, AMACOM, ISBN 0-8144-7165-X
• Brewer, Jack (1 December 2002), "Among Friends: There's always time to change", Houston Chronicle, p. Lifestyle 8, Factiva hou0000020021203dyc10005u
• Cantor, Paul A. (2003), Gilligan Unbound: Pop Culture in the Age of Globalization, Rowman & Littlefield, ISBN 0-7425-0779-3
• Elger, Dietmar; Solaro, Elizabeth M. (2010), Gerhard Richter: A Life in Painting, University of Chicago Press, ISBN 0-226-20323-9
• FitzSimons, Peter (2009), How Hemlines Predict the Economy: Explanations, Rationalizations, and Theories on Everything, Skyhorse Publishing, ISBN 978-1-60239-311-0
• Flatow, Ira (8 August 1997), "Left handedness and Meteor Showers", Talk of the Nation, Factiva totn000020011008dt88000by
• Freiberg, Kevin; Freiberg, Jackie (1998), Nuts!: Southwest Airlines' crazy recipe for business and personal success (1st paperback ed.), Broadway Books, ISBN 0-7679-0184-3
• Galupo, Scott (16 February 2005), "Four troubadours trade tunes, tales", The Washington Times, p. B05, Factiva WATI000020050216e12g0000t
• Godfrey, Linda S. (2006), Mark Sceurman and Mark Moran (ed.), Weird Michigan: Your Travel Guide to Michigan's Local Legends and Best Kept Secrets, Sterling, ISBN 1-4027-3907-9
• Greenberg, Steve (2007), Gadget Nation: A Journey Through the Eccentric World of Invention, Sterling, ISBN 978-1-4027-3686-5
• Grimes, David (15 February 1999), "When tissue is an issue", Sarasota Herald-Tribune, p. 1E, Factiva ssta000020010829dv2f003ir, retrieved 11 October 2013
• Hage, Joe (2010), "Gerhard Richter » Art » Atlas » Atlas Sheet 15 » Associated Paintings » Toilet Paper » 75-3", gerhard-richter.com, retrieved 12 July 2010
• Harris, David (1 January 2010), "Letters to the Editor: One way or another, just let it roll", The Australian, p. 19, Factiva AUSTLN0020091231e6110002o
• Hunt, Don; Edwards, Brian (28 April 2000), "Toilet Seat Creates Flush of Excitement", Chicago Tribune, retrieved 3 July 2010
• Ichikawa, Anne (June–July 2004), "Celebrity Bathroom", Elle Girl, p. 64
• Ichikawa, Anne (March 2005), "Celebrity Bathroom", Elle Girl, p. 106
• Kimberly-Clark (27 January 2010), How Does America Roll? Cottonelle Brand Teams With Tori and Dean to End the Age-Old Debate: Over or Under? (press release), Factiva {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |agency= ignored (help)
• Landers, Ann (24 April 1992), "Which way do you hang the roll? A poll", The Dallas Morning News, p. 2c, Factiva dal0000020011206do4o00fma
• Landers, Ann (8 February 1997), "Ann Landers", The Washington Post, p. B09, Factiva wp00000020020504dt2800ipf
• Lawrence, Keith (20 November 1999), "Here's another tidbit you can use to win an argument", Messenger-Inquirer, Factiva krtbn00020010828dvbk0256f
• Lipman, Joanne (17 August 1987), "Censored Scenes: Why You Rarely See Some Things in Television Ads", The Wall Street Journal, Factiva j000000020011118dj8h00kz8
• Loftin, Josh (22 June 2004), "Hiatt warms up crowd slowly", Deseret Morning News, p. C04, Factiva DN00000020040622e06m0000w
• Luna, Aaron (29 August 2009), "Toilet Paper Debate Finally Solved: Paper from the top or bottom, now you can have it both ways.", nbc11news.com, KKCO, retrieved 23 August 2010
• Magill, Frank Northen, ed. (1993), "All in the Family Introduces a New Style of Television Comedy", Great Events from History II: Arts and Culture Series, vol. 5, Pasadena, California: Salem Press, pp. 2234–2238, ISBN 0-89356-812-0
• Mark Wolf Scripps Howard News Service (1 January 1990), "Little habits tell a lot about us all", St. Louis Post-Dispatch, p. EVERYDAY MAGAZINE 1D, Factiva SLMO000020040626dm1101jgj
• Matsushita, Elaine (12 October 2008), "Looking for Matt Wertz? Check in the butler's pantry", Chicago Tribune, Factiva KRTTB00020081012e4ac00046
• Matsushita, Elaine (22 March 2009), "Daren Kagasoff reveals what's really in his closet (think Imelda Marcos)", Chicago Tribune, Factiva KRTTB00020090322e53m00037
• Miller, Michael (28 May 1999), "Glowing with inspiration, perspiration", Pittsburgh Business Times, retrieved 3 July 2010
• Ms Maud (23 November 2002), "Toilet Training", The Press, p. 2, Factiva thepre0020021125dybn000xi
• Nalebuff, Barry; Ayres, Ian (2006), Why Not?: How to Use Everyday Ingenuity to Solve Problems Big And Small, Harvard Business Press
• Newman, Paul (October 2000), "INVENTOR PROFILE: Curtis Batts, Inventor of the Tilt-A-Roll", The Online Inventor, archived from the original on 9 February 2011, retrieved 3 July 2010
• Oldenburg, Don (12 October 1989), "Little Did You Know ...", The Washington Post, p. STYLE c05, Factiva wp00000020011117dlac01bs2
• Orr, Karin (17 September 1995), "We meet face to face, but see only a face", The Grand Rapids Press, p. j1, Factiva grpr000020011025dr9h00ajp
• Paul, John (2006), ""Flushing" Out Sociology: Using the Urinal Game and other Bathroom Customs to Teach the Sociological Perspective" (PDF), Electronic Journal of Sociology, archived from the original (PDF) on 14 July 2010, retrieved 11 July 2010
• Poretz, Mel; Sinrod, Barry (19 July 1989), The First Really Important Survey of American Habits, Price Stern Sloan, ISBN 0-8431-2735-X
• Rademacher, Tom (11 April 2005), Toilet tissue collector is a real roll player, Factiva APRS000020050411e14b00c1j {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |agency= ignored (help)
• Ratzlaff, Brian (28 June 2009), "Is 'Nanny State' Neutering Us?", The Modesto Bee, p. A11, Factiva MBEE000020090630e56s0000b
• Rawson, Christopher (24 November 2008), "Sage advice:Don't miss Ruoti playing Ann Landers", Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, p. E-1, Factiva PPGZ000020081124e4bo0001v
• Russell, Jan Jarboe (2006), "Can You Take a Hint?", Texas Monthly on... Texas Women, Emmis Publishing, p. 84, ISBN 0-292-71327-4
• Saunders, Anne (21 March 2006), Restaurant smoking ban passes in the House, Factiva APRS000020060321e23l002xm {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |agency= ignored (help)
• Stovall, Waltrina (1 August 1997), "Looks like a good idea on toilet paper: Roll-holder inventor, others vie for spots on shopping channel", The Dallas Morning News, Factiva dal0000020011006dt81013qz
• Tighe, Mike (30 April 2008), "Incorrect Twist-Ties Put Some in Knots", The Palm Beach Post, p. 3, Factiva PMBP000020080501e44u00013
• Walsh, Michael (8 August 1999), "What's new: Four recent additions to product list for homes promising", Patriot-News, p. H01, Factiva pathar0020010827dv8800j36
• Welsh, Anne Marie (13 August 2005), "'Lady' a better read in newsprint", The San Diego Union-Tribune, p. E-1, Factiva SDU0000020050815e18d00031, retrieved 12 July 2010
• Widdicombe, Ben (8 June 2004), "Butler Servers Up More Dish on Diana", Daily News, New York, p. 38, Factiva NYDN000020040608e0680005m
• Wizda, Sharyn (19 March 1990), "Personalities", The Washington Post, p. c03, Factiva wp00000020011116dm3j00bd9
• Wuthrich, John F. (26 January 2006), "Who elected these freaks?", The Salt Lake Tribune, p. A10, Factiva SLTR000020060127e21q0001a
• Wyman, Pat (2001), Three Keys to Self-Understanding: An Innovative and Effective Combination of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, the Enneagram, and Inner-Child Healing, Center for Applications of Psychological Type, ISBN 0-935652-57-4
• Yeld, John (31 March 2010), "SMS feedback – March 31, 2010", Cape Argus, Factiva MEWCAP0020100401e63v00011, A British loo paper manufacturer investigated whether it was more economical to run loo paper over the top or draw it from below. From below was the verdict.
• "The Self-styled Publisher", Brandweek, 4 May 2009, Factiva ADMW000020090604e5540002j
• "Wines from the Fourth Estate", The Daily Examiner, p. 26, 23 May 2009, Factiva APNDEG0020090522e55n000b7
• "StartUP: The Last Word: No detail missed by Southwest exec", Dayton Daily News, p. 1A, 19 June 1996, Factiva ddnw000020011017ds6j000tc
• "Pandora's Portfolio", Fund Action, Euromoney Institutional Investor, 2 March 2009, Factiva FUNDAC0020090316e52r00007
• "Dingo – Fisherman's tale", Centralian Advocate, p. 6, 7 May 2002, Factiva cadvoc0020021123dy57002nt, A particularly fascinating response came from a reader who found a university in the US conducted a study into the most economical toilet paper use. The six-month study found that when the toilet paper came over the front of the roll less was used than if the paper was pulled from the back.
• "Manners Column", The Courier-Mail, p. 18, 1 November 2000, Factiva coumai0020010805dwb10037p
• Praeger, Dave (2007), Poop Culture: How America Is Shaped by Its Grossest National Product, Feral House, p. 72
• Society of Automotive Engineers (2004), Reliability and robust design in automotive engineering, p. 412 Presents a statistical test to determine gender differences in toilet paper orientation.

Merge to Toilet roll holder#Orientation discussion

See Talk:Toilet_roll_holder#Merge_Toilet_paper_orientation_to_Toilet_roll_holder. SilkTork (talk) 14:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Merge Uses in social studies section to Social constructionism

There is material in the Uses in social studies section which appear more appropriate for the article on Social constructionism. It's probably a judgement call as to where that material is best placed, though as the section is essentially about social constructionism (and how people's views on toilet roll orientation can be a tool to help students understand social constructionism, and how it is one example in a number of others, such as "the orientation of cutlery in a dishwasher, the choice of which drawer in a chest of drawers to place one's socks, and the order of shampooing one's hair and lathering one's body in the shower") rather than about the toilet paper and its orientation, it would seem best placed in Social constructionism. SilkTork (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

OR Tag

@QueenofBithynia: I removed the OR tag. I think you should discuss that here. --evrik ^(talk) 13:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Example of OR: The over position is shown in illustrations with the first patent for a toilet-roll holder, issued in 1891 - cited to an image from a patent on patents.google.com. This might be true, but it needs secondary reliable sources to cite this, not us. This was just the most glaring one for me; I don't have the time to go through this article line-by-line, but considering this piece of original research has stayed for as long as it has, then it's likely there are other instances within the article. QueenofBithynia (talk) 10:04, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

The detail that needs secondary is for the patent being the first, not merely stating what the patent actually says (WP:PATENTS). I found some prior art from the same year (updated in the article). There are some slightly older patents from the same inventor (Seth Wheeler), who did a lot of work on various rolled-paper products and dispensers for the E. B. Eddy Company, but patents.google only seems to have full-text of US not CA from that era. Patent "prior art" is a reliable way of finding older examples, but I think simply not finding prior art is WP:OR that there actually isn't any. DMacks (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Bias towards under position?

In the article, a paragraph is written on the under position describing the benefits of using it. This would be fine if the over position also had a paragraph of similar length. However, it doesn’t, and that is something that needs to be addressed. People will gain more information on the under position and all they see on the over position is a mere patent. I understand if citations are needed to gain this data, but it is clearly a biased perspective on toilet paper orientation. Thank you for reading. Senomo Drines (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

No, the over position also has a paragraph's worth of atttributes but they were part of a bigger paragraph. I have broken them out. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:48, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think I could've gotten anything else done today until I checked to see if anyone was actually championing one position or the other here in Talk. – AndyFielding (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

If you get a holiday-bonus or employee-of-the-month award for high productivity, remember that you owe Wikipedia big-time for it. DMacks (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Cats in the house suggestion

No mention is made of cats and the necessity of the under-position to prevent piles of tp on the floor. On the other paw, so many citations, notes, and further reading entries are reffed to press releases that a wikicane-cutting-machina may be necessary. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 22:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC) —

The article does say "The under position ... reduces the risk of ... a cat unrolling the toilet paper when batting at the roll". As far as I remember, that point has been in the article for years. Melchoir (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Article blatant bias toward horizontality.

I am disappointed that the article only contains information relating to rolls of toilet paper that are on horizontal holders. I have seen multiple instances of toilet paper rolls that are on vertical holders, and the holders themselves for sale in hardware stores. I'd be interested to see sections relating to the vertical holders and details of debates between the clockwise and counterclockwise orientation of the rolls upon them. This is not trivial but is a very present issue; Google "vertical toilet roll holder" to see how common they are. 2600:1700:EA01:1090:2101:5D44:C4A1:A5D1 (talk) 18:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Assuming you're serious - as serous as one can be with this topic - there's no discussion that I've ever seen on left/right for vertical holders. It's not even a tongue-in-cheek debate. If you can source actual discussion about the topic, then add it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Ann Landers details and citations

I have improve the Landers details and citations. You can read about it and find copies of the columns here. Reagle (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Belbury I don't think you should remove the Guardian piece from the article altogether. That was the sole source for the Lander's claim, and an interesting review of this topic's play in popular culture until I improved it. It only seems "unremarkable" because I spent hours tracking down the original Landers' columns in the archives. Since the Guardian is not the source for the claim anymore, I improved the description of what the Guardian piece spoke of. Reagle (talk) 13:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Good work in adding stronger sources, but I don't think we owe the weaker WP:NEWSOPED one any favours for being superseded, certainly not a full sentence of A 2021 article in The Guardian reviewed the controversy in the lead. It's a filler opinion piece for the lifestyle section.

If we think it's worth writing in this article about Oprah, the Toilet Paper Personality Test or the TikTok claim that the journalist presented as "no idea whether it's credible or not", we can cite the source stories that they're linking to, or, once again, find better ones. Belbury (talk) 13:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I added a section on pop culture and add cites for most of the things mentioned, but I'd prefer not cite them as they aren't the most reliable things themselves. Still, the fact that they are mentioned in the Guardian is relevant evidence of its appearance in popular culture. Reagle (talk) 13:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Two of the sources linked to from the Guardian seem okay, the Oprah Daily blog and the Indy100 interview.

I think A 2021 article in The Guardian reviewed the controversy is overstating it when this is just a short lifestyle piece, the kind of clipping that will have been written hundreds of times since the 1970s. Saying that in 2021 a Guardian journalist mentioned the 1891 patent design isn't by itself an insightful piece of pop culture.

I'll have a go at expanding the section. It's certainly worth saying more about what the viral TikTok and personality test actually were. Belbury (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)