Talk:Scrotum

How is this article not semi-protected? Look at the edit history.

MDaxo (talk) 04:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Inquiry about proposed addition of a video of the movement of the scrotum

Hi folks: assuming there is anyone regularly watching this talk page, I would like input on an edit I just narrowly disallowed (for the moment) as a pending changes reviewer. TomasHidden, as his first Wikipedia edit to that account, proposed to add a video which he uploaded himself, showing a time-lapse accelerated display of the movement of the scrotum. Due to the pre-protection editing history here, and because I judged the video to have some small potential for controversy (being as it is proposed for addition by the same party who uploaded it and it is not immediately obvious what is causing the changes in state of the scrotum--i.e. changes in environmental conditions or state of arousal or manual stimulation), I thought it best to kick the decision to the consensus of involved editors here. However, I note there is slow contribution here over recent years, so if I see no response one way or the other, I will simply reverse my revert and allow the addition to proceed.

On a side note, I recognize that our new friend's first edit here might be perceived as a bit of an eye-raising one, but I'm AGFing on this situation, personally. Indeed, I would not have reverted this edit if not the for the pending changes status / history of disruption here; whatever the cause of the changes occurring in the video, there is a physiological process being demonstrated, so I lean towards including it. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Unusual first edit but whatever. Not sure the clip adds anything to the article for the reason you've already mentioned: we don't know what physiological process is being demonstrated, so all we're seeing is a context-free movement of a body part. On that basis it probably fails MOS:PERTINENCE. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I did have that concern as well, but as a pending changes reviewer I try to use a light touch: that is to say, I typically only procedurally reject edits if they touch upon the reasons protection was applied to the article or page in the first place (or other forms of disruption). Otherwise I allow the edit and let the local consensus decide whether or not to retain the changes, even if they are changes I would object to on other editorial grounds if I was an active editor on that article. That said, our new user has not responded here or to the message I left on their talk page, and I'm not sure they are going to. I think, barring further input from someone else, that makes you a consensus of one, Euryalus, and I'm going to leave the video out. Any party should please feel free to ping me back here if necessary, or to re-add the video if consensus changes. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Snow Rise: ha, well it's nice to have unanimity even if I'm 100% of the participants. You do more pending changes stuff than me but from my amateur perspective I agree there's no reason to reject this edit on those grounds. Seems like it could be added in good faith and it's not an obvious violation of any policy. I don't think it's necessary in the context of the article but that's a regular editorial opinion rather than a PC matter. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok, that works for me as well. :) Since I did leave a notice on WikiProject Physiology, I'll allow for another day or two for the possibility of extra perspectives, just so we're not wrenching the edit in and out, but if I don't see anything here by Thursday or Friday, I'll re-add the video per your observations above: I agree the utility is borderline, but absent any objections I am inclined to also agree there's no real harm done by inclusion, given the nature of the article and the...shall we say already robust scrotal imagery present. Thanks for taking the time to provide input! SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Again, on the image.

The current diagramatic picture is simply confusing: The Scrotum is primarily skin, and the picture has no skin. The female homologous organ the labia majora has only live pictures, particularly revealing ones at that, and it serves to better inform.

I dont see any reason at all why the lead picture shouldnt be of a real models testes. Suitable images have already been provided in the other talk threads. 90.242.136.228 (talk) 14:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC)