Talk:Willy

During WW1 British citizens began calling a penis a willy to express their disdain for the Kaiser Willhelm

Penis[edit]

A willy is not a slang term for the male penis. it is a name. Is there such a thing as a female penis? Assuming no, I've changed that. DirkvdM 09:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'Male penis' simply refers to it as the male organ. Nothing to do with male or female penises. Archergolfer (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A willy has always been a penis to me. Tough break Dirk. JayKeaton 18:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

who or which or why or what is

Willy (cowpoke), the famous Montana cowpoke

I can find no reference Len 21:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not so famous then... I even have probs with the term cowpoke. what on earth is that? sounds a bit lurid to me. (unless it is just a more vigorous form of cowprod) :) DavidP

who the hell calls their penis a willy?? Malevious

A lot of people here in Britain call a penis a "willy"...

Slang belongs to wiktionary, and there is a link to it in the page Willy. `'Míkka >t 23:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes but one could argue that a slang name could belong on wikipedia. Willy is a colloquial name for William. Willy is also a COLLOQUIAL/slang name for Penis. I've done some research and found that slang is featured on wikipedia such as fanny and cock and others, these are slang. I suggest that people do research before deleting. I will readd it soon unless someone gives me a decent arguement why not to.

If you say the word "willy" to someone in Britain, they will immediately think of a penis, I assure you. If a child was unfortunate enough to be called William, then he would have the piss taken out of him all the way through school life (I should know, because regrettably it's my middle name). Saying "A willy is not a slang term for the male penis" is absolutely ridiculous and whoever wrote that doesn't know what the fuck they are talking about here. 89.168.47.174 (talk) 22:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with anon user above. Wikipedia is not intended to be a dictionary, but where slang terms exist they are often in effect alternative names for whatever they reference. And there are certainly people (mainly young children probably) whose primary word for penis is willy. This makes it a plausible redirect target, and as such a valid entry on the disambiguation page. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no WP ambiguity here. WP is not a dictionary, and certainly not a dictionary of slang terms, and "willy" is not mentioned at penis. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC

(text copied from JHunterJ talk page) Just wanted to enquire why you think the redirect from Willy to Penis is not legitimate. I accept that the article as it stands does not mention the term explicitly, but I imagine if it was fully developed it would be legitimate for it to do so, in a disussion of alternative names for the subject. And ~~while you may think the term "willy" is childish or slang~~, it is nonetheless a valid term in the English language for the penis, which means that if there were no other meanings it would be a redirect. Since there are other meanings, an entry on the disambig page seems appropriate, as is indeed the case for Fanny, Cock and other terms of this nature. Thanks. — Amakuru (talk) 22:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDICT and MOS:DABMENTION indicate why it's not a dab page entry, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS explains why Fanny and Cock are not sufficient to force a "Willy" entry. If it were a redirect, it would be subject to WP:RFD. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DabMention is a positive instruction: "If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article should be included". This does not say anything about whether or not a link is valid if the alternative term is *not* mentioned in the other article. And as I say, penis is hardly in a complete enough or featured article that we can draw conclusive arguments from what is or is not contained within it. So given that (a) the link existed for years with no issue, until someone removed it, (b) this is a common term for the subject of the target article in question (particularly amongst the under fives, who often know the subject by the name Willy and know no other name for it); (c) there are others who have made the same point as me, above. You've quoted a lot of WP policies to me but I don't think you've really answered the questoin of why the link to Willy should not exist. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Examples of individual entries that should not be created: "Do not include entries for topics that are not ambiguous (according to the linked article) with the title." "Fanny" is mentioned on buttocks, "cock" is mentioned on penis, so even the "other stuff exists" is different than this case. If the article penis is incomplete, improve it. If those improvement introduce Wikipedia ambiguity for that topic with "willy", add it here after that ambiguity exists. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I rather doubt we'll see penis on the main page (with or without image) any time soon; it's not really high on my list of articles to work on anyway... — Amakuru (talk) 15:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As has been mentioned, the disambiguation page for "Cock" includes "Penis or cock". The disambiguation page for "Dick" says "Dick, a colloquial vulgarism for the penis". Willy is exactly the same. To NOT mention it's use as a term for the penis would be inconsistent. The only factor here seems to be that it is local to the United Kingdom - or maybe that it is not widely known in the United States... However, English Wikipedia regularly includes British colloquialisms in disambiguation pages. If it were an obscure, little used, or an archaic usage, I would understand it's omission. It is however a current term, familiar and used by over 60 million English speakers. I therefore include it, in order to maintain consistency and completeness in Wikipedia. Thisismadness (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As has been mentioned, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Examples of individual entries that should not be created: "Do not include entries for topics that are not ambiguous (according to the linked article) with the title." If the article penis is incomplete, improve it. If those improvement introduce Wikipedia ambiguity for that topic with "willy", add it here after that ambiguity exists, to maintain consistency and completeness in Wikipedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the debate on this one (I have read it). Since "willy" is patently a current slang term (one might also say ia euphemism) for "penis" then it should be on the DAB. It doesn't have to have undue prominence, but should be on there. I came here after it being mentioned in conversation just to see what Wikipedia says, and it doesn't mention it at all, which is just wrong. Yes, not WP:DICDEF, but this is a DAB page not an artickel and if the DAB at cock has it, so should this. It is not as if we are adding redirects for one-eyed trouser snake or old fellow or whatever. But since quite rightly there has been discussion about it I am taking the third of WP:BRD rather than the first. Si Trew (talk) 09:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, patently,

Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
- Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang, since those are dictionaries.
Wikipedia disambiguation page disambiguate topics on Wikipedia for ambiguous titles
- The topic of "willy as a slang term for penis" is not covered on Wikipedia.

so we don't mention it at all. What needs to happen is for the slang terms for penis to be covered by a Wikipedia article (where they can be evaluated by the five pillars, etc.) and then, once Wikipedia coverage of the topic exists, then they are added to the disambiguation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]