Talk:The Great Toilet Paper Crisis of 2026

Single roll in the infobox diagram

The caption says the single roll in the Aisle 14 diagram "was later found to be a display model made of foam". The source for this is the Aisle Observation Series, but I have read volumes 1 through 3 and cannot find it. Is it in volume 4? If not, I propose we remove it from the caption, as it is a strong claim about a roll. CitationGoblin (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

It is in volume 4, page 211, footnote 38. The footnote also notes that the foam roll was "checked twice by 71 percent of shoppers", which I think supports the lead. Margaret Ledger-Pike (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I would still prefer an inline citation in the caption itself. CitationGoblin (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Captions with refs in them are discouraged per the infobox guidelines, as you know, because you wrote that section of the guidelines. Margaret Ledger-Pike (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

"Two-Ply Tuesday"

Should "Two-Ply Tuesday" really be listed in the infobox under also known as? It refers to one day of the crisis, not the crisis as a whole. Nobody calls the entire 103 days "Two-Ply Tuesday". BoldButCautious (talk) 09:47, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

The infobox already says "(March 17 only)". I think that is sufficient. Reginald Footnote (talk) 11:02, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

It is also confusing because the run on March 17 was on single-ply, not two-ply. The name is, at best, ironic. We should not be reproducing irony in an infobox. BoldButCautious (talk) 11:30, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

The name is what reliable sources use. The National Ledger-Observer used it 14 times in March alone. Whether the name is accurate is a matter for the people who named it. Reginald Footnote (talk) 12:15, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Fine. I have added an explanatory footnote explaining the discrepancy. Please do not remove it. BoldButCautious (talk) 12:40, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

I have removed it, because it duplicated the "Peak" section word for word. Quillfeather (talk) 08:03, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Injuries figure

The infobox gives 41 injuries, "mostly shopping-cart related". The subcommittee report gives 41 injuries, but I count 38 cart-related, 2 involving a promotional display and 1 involving the inflatable mascot. Is the mascot injury really an injury, or is it property damage? The mascot was the one injured. TheTepidTruth (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Reading the report again, the mascot is listed under property damage and a separate person was injured by it. So 41 stands. I have nothing further to add, except that I would like the record to show I read all eleven days of hearings to determine this. TheTepidTruth (talk) 22:51, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

The record shows it. ArchivistOfNonsense (talk) 07:30, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Featured article review: Plyford

Raising this before the FA review closes. The "Squeeze Responsibly" section mentions Plyford but does not say what kind of roll he is. The campaign materials consistently show him as two-ply. Given the Two-Ply Tuesday discussion above, I think this is a significant omission that touches on neutrality, since the government was arguably taking a side. ArchivistOfNonsense (talk) 14:12, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Is there a secondary source that discusses Plyford's ply? Otherwise this is original research. CitationGoblin (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Pruitt discusses it on page 188, in a chapter called "The Politics of Plyford". ArchivistOfNonsense (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Then add one sentence, cited, and let us close the review. This article has been at FAR for nine weeks, which is longer than the shortage lasted after the Reserve was released. Margaret Ledger-Pike (talk) 16:20, 11 October 2026 (UTC)