Talk:Virility

Sociology Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anatomy: Gross Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy 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.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to gross anatomy.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Virility article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary.
The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.)
Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary.
Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.

Beard

Why is this beard there? it is just some poor sap trying to get his pic on wikipedia isnt it? felinoel 04:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia is to be taken seriously, it has to be mindful of those that put heir pictures up as a joke. The picture as funny but mainly because it is out of place on this page. Seeing this guys picture doesn't make me think of virility. It actually gives the opposite impression of what virility is. D1rodgers (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. It also points out that beard growth is hardly the "essence of virility" anyway. "Virtue", for example, does not imply anything about beards. I'll attempt to get this article to start class at some stage, if no one else does it. At that point I'll probably intervene to "spoil the fun". Irrelevant material can be removed by anyone, anytime, though. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The picture represents an aspect of virility, that is beard growth which has recognized throughout time to represent virility. It does so particularity poignantly by its representation of two bearded young men and thereby reflecting another aspect of virility. I disagree with its deletion unless a suitable replacement be found as this is counterproductive the construction of open source of knowledge. (talk) 05:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Man.with.shaved.head.jpg might be a good replacement. 82.4.36.18 (talk) 20:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave the picture! It is hilarious, and it proves the point to boot. We need some humor on this sometimes too serious website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.234.166 (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, as much as I want wikipedia to be all-serious-all-the-time, beard guy is funny - if we were to replace it with some generic illustration, it'd lose its character. I can't bear to cut the photo - although I would be willing to consider the possibility of merging that section into a 'beard' article.MattLohkamp 21:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt.lohkamp (talk • contribs)

I don't think this picture has much encyclopedic point. It is many visitors would assume that someone with hardly much other contribution just wanted their own picture here. I would regard this as misuse and remove it. A photo of ancient or modern symbols of virility would be more appropriate, if this article is supposed to remain. --Farzaneh (talk) 11:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, it's a picture that serves an illustrative purpose. It is somewhat humorous, but it dose serves a purpose. Instead of debating over the deletion of the image, this article can be expanded. Space is limitless, and more pictures could be added. Elejew (talk) 04:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that picture servers any purpose regarding the meaning or concept of virility. It is just vaguely funny and irrelevant. Shall we try to reach an agreement before undoing eachother's edits? --Farzaneh (talk) 09:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(In response to User:elejew (talk) ) People improve articles a lot, and removing irrelevant information and jokes is just one way of improving articles. That picture is obviously just a joke and there is no consensus of it being a sign of virility. Feel free to find a better picture (a recent photo of Putin for example as apparently he is known as a symbol of virility amongst his nation, or something from ancient Greece would be more appropriate.) Also I think we should have this discussion on the article's talk page so that others can read and contribute. --Farzaneh (talk) 21:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The picture has been improved. I think the issue is settled. Elejew (talk) 04:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny and postmodern

LOL this is one of the funniest wikipedia articles I have ever found. If only there was a postmodernist bullshit tag. 60.241.213.129 (talk) 09:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At Wiki, anyone can make things like tags happen, though others may choose to remove them, and will succeed unless you defend your contribution.

To create the tag you desire:

Select (mouse drag) the following text and copy it (Ctrl-C) — <sup>[Postmodernist bullshit]</sup>
Click on this red link — Template:Bullshit-postmodernist.
Click in the large text box.
Paste the clipboard contents (Ctrl-V).
Click on the Save page button.

It's that easy.

Wiki style prefers Noun-Classifier in tag formats — for example, Poets-Australian, rather than Australian Poets. So when using your tag, you will need to remember to type {{Bullshit-postmodernist}}. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

I was looking for the meaning of the expression MacDaddy and got redirected to this article. However, neither does this article explain the term nor does it even mention it at all. This leaves me vaguely guessing that the expression "MacDaddy" must have something to do with virility (luckily, I know what that term means without having to rely on this article for an explanation), but other than that, I have no idea what this redirect is supposed to be good for. --84.190.90.92 (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Virile is Latin for manly

According to the article, Oxford English Dictionary states that virility is just as well applied to women. But here's what the dictionary actually says:

1. 
a. The period of life during which a person of the male sex is in full vigour; mature or fully developed manhood or masculine force.
b. transf. or fig.
c. Masculine vigour; masculinity of sex.
2. 
†a. The generative organs. Obs.
b. The power of procreation; capacity for sexual intercourse. [with male examples]
†c. pl. = 2b. Obs.
3.
a. Manly strength and vigour of action or thought; energy or force of a virile character.
b. transf.

Note that 3a has one female reference: 1716 J. Addison Freeholder No. 26. ⁋7, "I have lately been told of a Country-Gentlewoman, pretty much famed for this Virility of Behaviour in Party-Disputes."

That seems to imply to me that the woman did not behave as was generally expected from gentlewomen. I don't think the description in this article is correct. Weidorje (talk) 08:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Mature sperm in seminiferous tubules.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]