Talk:Penis
<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Penis Template:Pagetype. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Template:Find general sources |
| Archives: Template:Comma separated entries<templatestyles src="Template:Tooltip/styles.css" />Auto-archiving periodScript error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".: Template:Human readable duration File:Information icon4.svg |
| Template:Search box |
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".
Script error: No such module "Message box". Template:FAQ Script error: No such module "Banner shell". Script error: No such module "Message box". Script error: No such module "Message box". Template:Pp-move-indefScript error: No such module "Message box".Template:Category handlerTemplate:Category handler
"Neutral Point of View"
Don't seem biased to either a creationist or evolutionary point of view. We interpret the world through our worldviews, people! 50.38.69.203 (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- Evolution is long established fact and creationism is a religious belief. There are a zillion religions, and we do not give them equal time in every article just because someone believes them. GMGtalk 19:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- Technically, macroevolution is a well-supported theory while microevolution is long established fact. Your point otherwise holds. Jtrevor99 (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- I mean...if the alternative is "a god waved their magic wand" then the argument about the differences within evolution isn't really important. GMGtalk 23:11, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- Eh, we're getting off topic here anyway. All but the most conservative of Creationists see no conflict between creation and evolution. But I digress. The point remains that the article needs no change. Jtrevor99 (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- I mean...if the alternative is "a god waved their magic wand" then the argument about the differences within evolution isn't really important. GMGtalk 23:11, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- Technically, macroevolution is a well-supported theory while microevolution is long established fact. Your point otherwise holds. Jtrevor99 (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Make the page informative again
Last year, Autisticeditor 20 (a banned user, mind you) removed a huge portion of useful and vital information regarding the page in 2024 in particular, and yet it's largely gone unchecked. Just look at all the times where it shows thousands of characters removed. Compare this page in...say... 2023 to what it is now. It looks like a "Penises for Dummies" or some Simple Wikipedia article, not because of anything new people have added or rewritten per se, but because of how much has been removed, and yet this is an important article for biology on the encyclopedia of the internet. Too much has been removed or shortened for...whose sake? Whose? Do we not go to Wikipedia to deep dive, not surface float? I'm no editor, I haven't made an edit since 2013, but very sad by what I see here. Please, will some editors please stand up? Ludichris1 (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
- You are quite right Ludichris. However, there have been some good faith edits in between now and when Autisticeditor 20 messed the page up, so we must manual go through his edits and add the missing information back. This is quite a tedious affair so I fear that it will take quite some time. Easternsahara (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry for the late reply. Yeah, I don't understand why he thought streamlining things with summarization and redacting information was the best call. Like, I understand the benefit of summarizing, but one should want to retain the details, and if not, list them elsewhere. But they were just eliminated altogether.
- Indeed, quite. Yeah, like I said, a lot of people made good contributions or rewrites. Hell, I'm sure he did some too. But taking away details should be a last resort in a website dedicated to preserving and disseminating information.
- Thank you. I wish everyone the best of luck :) Ludichris1 (talk) 23:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
i think we should add a picture of a human dick
all the penises here are animals, and i get the feeling most people studying penises mean to see the human variety of them — 𝟷.𝟸𝟻𝚔𝚖 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 22:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- Absolutely! If this is not The Puritan Wikipedia, then a photo of a mid-sized non-erect and unaltered (i.e. natural, i.e. uncircumcised) human penis is a must-have!
"Penes" listed at Redirects for discussion
File:Information.svg The redirect Penes has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Template:Section link until a consensus is reached. Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 04:27, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
