Revision as of 07:15, 2 October 2010 edit203.217.65.132 (talk) →Adult-sized body← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:51, 4 February 2011 edit undoDodger67 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators92,440 edits Added WikiProject DisabilityNext edit → | ||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
{{WikiProject Fashion|class=B|importance=low|nested=yes}} | {{WikiProject Fashion|class=B|importance=low|nested=yes}} | ||
{{WPMED|class=B|importance=mid|nested=yes}} | {{WPMED|class=B|importance=mid|nested=yes}} | ||
{{WikiProject Disability|class=B}} | |||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 16:51, 4 February 2011
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Adult diaper article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Adult-sized body
The article starts off with "An adult diaper is a diaper made to be worn by a person with an adult-sized body."
That sounds like political correctness gone too far. Why not just say, "made to be worn by an adult?" After all, when was the last time you heard of a baby with an adult-sized body?
I changed it to "an adult". Stonemason89 (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Someone changed it to "...body larger than that of an infant or toddler", without explaining why. I reverted it again. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Because teens might need "adult" diapers, too?
Picture/Poorly-written
Is that picture of the male in an adult diaper really necessary? It's esthetically unpleasant. Second of all, the article claims that "Depends" is the most popular brand. I'm unsure as to whether that's true in places outside North America. Overall, this article is poorly written, seemingly set up to cater to a fetish group rather than inform. --Seal (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that the Depends statement should be removed and I have done so. I don't see what's so "unpleasant" about the image. It's an article about adult diapers so there's a picture of an adult in a diaper. If the diaper was visibly dirty or something, I could see your point, but there's nothing particularly offensive about IMO. Would you like to change the image or would you rather not see adults in diapers at all? Because if it's the latter, I would cite WP:CENSOR. I don't see how the article is fetish-oriented since only one (small) paragraph relates to fetishism. Do you have more specific suggestions as to how to improve it? Coop41 (talk) 04:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- The image is not offensive, but something like that is not necessary. Just as its not necessary to have a self-shot picture of a thirty-year old man wearing underwear in an article about underwear. That's partially why I saw the article as fetish-oriented. A proper choice for a picture would something you'd see on a professional website, such as a medical supply site. I'm not too familiar with the copyright policies here, but Google Image search reveals many decent choices. --Seal (talk) 04:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
you can get information adult diaper colerad with bladder cancer on http://adultdiaper101.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.164.102.177 (talk) 02:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Adult diaper as energy source
Adult diapers in Japan turned into fuel by Tim Hornyak. I don't know if this is relevant for the article but it addresses diaper wastes. Komitsuki (talk) 12:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Categories: