Talk:Human penis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Human penis article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives (index): 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 6 months  |
 | Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
 | The Human penis article was split from the Penis article in December 2010. As such, much of the past history of discussions about this page (and its images) can be found at Talk:Penis and its archives - see Talk:Penis/Archive index. |
Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning the human penis.
Q1:I have an issue with a picture on this article.
A1: You can post a message on this page about your concern. If you add or remove a photograph from the article, do not be surprised if someone else undoes your edit within hours. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not censored. However from an editorial standpoint, debate about the inclusion or exclusion of certain pictures (or types of pictures) is a permanent fixture of this talk page. Q2: I have an issue with a certain type of penis not being represented in photographs on this article.
A2: See answer to previous question. Q3: I would like to upload a picture of my penis.
A3: Unfortunately, the realities of supply and demand are not in your favor. There is a large supply of Wikipedia editors willing to photograph their penis in the name of science. However, the demand is much lower. If you feel that your penis is more deserving of placement on the article page, you are free to make your case below. |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.PNG)
.svg){kind=small}
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them.The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. |
 | This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
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)
- We have an entire article covering that: Ejaculation. It is not required here. Jasphetamine (talk) 21:13, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
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.
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)
- This was already discussed and almost universally rejected in February. What has changed since that time? Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- Yes I agree with this. Crossroads -talk- 05:25, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
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)
- user:331dot ~2025-32005-00 (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
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)
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)
- Oppose: The current penis article is about a general overview of penises of many species, not just humans, thus being a broad-concept article. Clear primary topic. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 02:49, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per 1isall. Thanks, Glasspalace (talk | contribs) 03:16, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
- Strong oppose as per 1sall. Aesurias (talk) 04:07, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
- 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)