This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Animal anatomy High‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Animal anatomy, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to animal anatomy apart from human anatomy. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Animal anatomy. This project is an offshoot of WikiProject AnimalsAnimal anatomyWikipedia:WikiProject Animal anatomyTemplate:WikiProject Animal anatomyAnimal anatomy High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Men's Issues High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Men's Issues articles 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.Men's IssuesWikipedia:WikiProject Men's IssuesTemplate:WikiProject Men's IssuesMen's Issues High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Sexology and sexuality Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality 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.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Duck's penises aren't "designed". 86.31.178.164 (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done cyclopia^speak! 10:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

God is real 50.38.69.203 (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only current mention of humans in the article is a sentence that says humans do not have a baculum. It might also be worth mentioning somewhere that humans have penises (usually one per male human and an average of about one per two humans, if I understand correctly). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Humans are placental mammals. Via the transitive property, they are already adequately covered here. Feel free to add a "See also" for Human reproductive system or similar, however. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that most people have terms like placental mammals (and transitive property) in their everyday vocabulary. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updated lead. Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very odd that I was accused of "making the photo too large" when I was actually shrinking it on my copy of the page, by a significant margin. (It originally appeared at, I believe, 495px width - the preview width - for me.) I'm fine with the current size but wanted to make @Cyclopia: and others aware. It's probably a browser rendering difference when no size parameter is supplied. Jtrevor99 (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't seem biased to either a creationist or evolutionary point of view. We interpret the world through our worldviews, people! 50.38.69.203 (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution is long established fact and creationism is a religious belief. There are a zillion religions, and we do not give them equal time in every article just because someone believes them. GMG^talk 19:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, macroevolution is a well-supported theory while microevolution is long established fact. Your point otherwise holds. Jtrevor99 (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean...if the alternative is "a god waved their magic wand" then the argument about the differences within evolution isn't really important. GMG^talk 23:11, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, we're getting off topic here anyway. All but the most conservative of Creationists see no conflict between creation and evolution. But I digress. The point remains that the article needs no change. Jtrevor99 (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]