This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Physiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sanitation, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Sanitation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SanitationWikipedia:WikiProject SanitationTemplate:WikiProject Sanitationsanitation articles
This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.
Do we need multiple pictures of people urinating in this article?
We currently have 3 such photographs, and I'm not really seeing the marginal educational value of having these. I understand that illustrating this topic may well require depictions of genitalia, but we should try to not be
gratuitous in selecting our images. —
Red-tailed hawk(nest)14:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)reply
I find it a bit hilarious that this article's nearly 20-year history has been a revolving door of editors adding explicit images and other editors removing them. And in 20 years we've had the full spectrum participating, from POINTy editing and mere trolling, to objectivity and pragmatism, to (sometimes thinly veiled) prudishness.
Right... it's so stupid. And of course, weirdos are going to come out of the woodwork "wHy dO yOu hAvE a pRoBlEm wItH iT." Like they're enlightened libertines, and YOU'RE the weird one for wondering why an encyclopedia article about urination needs more than one image of a woman squatting down and urinating in public. Wikipedia is awful. And whoever is adding these, you ain't foolin' nobody.
Mercster (
talk)
04:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)reply