Talk:Human penis

Addition of New Images

I think we should ad a sort of GIF of a ejaculating Penis so people can understand it better 178.24.249.144 (talk) 06:09, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have an entire article covering that: Ejaculation. It is not required here. Jasphetamine (talk) 21:13, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal: Human penis to Penis

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Not Merged. Speedy Close. Disruptive request by blocked user. Mfield (Oi!) 04:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I propose merging the "Human penis" article into the main "Penis" article because the content is closely related and fits better under a single comprehensive page. 2A04:CEC0:C019:81CA:8491:7A07:20F8:F780 (talk) 03:48, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was already discussed and almost universally rejected in February. What has changed since that time? Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Short penis" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Short penis 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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 22 § Short penis until a consensus is reached. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 00:50, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

page image

that Is Not a normal looking penis why is it so thick 75.100.16.129 (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should the photographic page image be blocked from search autocomplete cards?

In an edit I made on November 21, I added the notpageimage style to the photograph in the infobox so it would not appear in search autocomplete. This was reverted 36 hours later by ReelyReal. I disagree with the revert -- I believe that while the image is a good lead image for the article, it is a bad _page image_ because the topic of this article is so popular the search autocompleter will pop it up when typing only "hum". Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, but anyone trying to search for any topic starting with "human" will have this article's page image displayed to them, which seems like a bit much.

After reading documentation I was pointed to by the folks at Village Pump (Technical), I requested an edit to the Infobox Anatomy template so the notpageimage style could be applied. In both conversations, other participants seemed to take it for granted that it would make sense for this image to be blocked from search autocomplete.

I would like to reinstate my edit, because I still think the Human Penis Jump Scare is not the ideal Wikipedia experience for users attempting to search for information on Human rights, hummingbirds, humpback whales, the humerus, or Humphrey Bogart, among other topics. ReelyReal, why do you prefer the image to show up as a search preview? Do other folks on this Talk page have opinions? Kistaro Windrider (talk) 04:22, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the balance, I would tend to agree. I see no harm in removing it from autocomplete searches - as it's still available once the user confirms s/he was actually looking for the topic, by opening the article. It's likely several other articles (I noted Human sexual activity as one) that would benefit from a similar update. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:40, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the Village Pump (Technical) discussion, someone pointed out that they thought Human penis used an illustration as a lead image for that reason; Human sexual activity does use an illustration. It does seem on the explicit side, and the result is almost as easy to trigger as the search card for Human penis, but the I recognize the distinction. Maybe the more general question should wind up on WP:Village pump (policy) or something? Kistaro Windrider (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025-Nov.7: I am reinstating my edit; I don't intend to just revert war, but I'd also rather not just leave the Human Penis Jump Scare in place when, as far as I can tell from the support of folks I talked to along the way to getting the template changed so adding the notpageimage class would be possible, there is a loose consensus that photographs of genitalia should not show up in search autocomplete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kistaro windrider (talk • contribs) 05:24, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree with this. Crossroads -talk- 05:25, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Human penis

Penis already exists so Human penis should be deleted and be a redirect to Penis, as for example for Human vagina, it redirects to Vagina. ~2025-32005-00 (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

user:331dot ~2025-32005-00 (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 November 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved Speedy closed, bad faith RM by LTA Mfield (Oi!) 05:22, 8 November 2025 (UTC) Mfield (Oi!) 05:22, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Human penis → Penis – If Human vagina redirects to Vagina, then Human penis should redirect to Penis. ~2025-32024-58 (talk) 02:27, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per 1isall. Thanks, Glasspalace (talk | contribs) 03:16, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose as per 1sall. Aesurias (talk) 04:07, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Humans are, on average, very interested in the human penis, whether they are fans, detractors, or have a more complex opinion. Regardless of whether it "should" be its own Wikipedia article or not, as long as Wikipedia is written primarily by and for humans, it is likely to have an article on the human penis. The lack of a distinct article on "Human vagina" almost certainly reflects the cultural impact of sexism -- why else would the human penis stick out further in the body of secondary references Wikipedia uses? -- but Wikipedia reflects the society we have erected, for better or for worse; Wikipedia explicitly does not help WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Kistaro Windrider (talk) 05:17, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human_penis