Talk:Human vaginal size

Proposed merge into Vagina

Per the discussion at WT:MED#Human_vaginal_size_article, there was significant support to merge this content into Vagina (leaving a redirect). This is important information and Wikipedia should cover it but the feeling from that discussion was that the coverage should be done at Vagina. Some coverage of this topic is already there and there's plenty of room to expand it there. Any objections? Zad68 01:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

No objections from me. Per the discussion at WP:MED about this, I still feel that this material would be best covered in the Vagina article. Flyer22 (talk) 02:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I think this would be a good idea. It will reduce needless duplication between the pages, and readers are more likely to see the information if it's all on one page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The merge sounds eminently sensible. --Hordaland (talk) 05:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to see us further diminish our discrete coverage of anthropometry — an area of our project that is already severely lacking in quantity and quality of content — so I have to respectfully oppose.   — C M B J   07:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I couldn't have put it better myself. Currently, to be frank, the coverage of anthropometry is woeful. Oppose.121.222.35.118 (talk) 09:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

That is not a valid reason to keep these articles separate. Whether or not to merge these two articles should not be about the lack of anthropometry coverage on Wikipedia. It should be about the fact that one of the articles is the main topic and the other is essentially a stub article without much coverage among sources and that should therefore mainly be covered in that former article. Per WP:Content fork, we should strive to keep aspects of a topic in one article instead of causing readers to go to multiple articles...unless necessary. Flyer22 (talk) 13:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Support - It seems clear to me that this topic doesn't warrant its own article, and that its more appropriate to cover it in main article. Klortho (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support if somewhat belated. Easily mergable. I'd also note the study given prominence here is of a very small sample size so not at all 'reliable'. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

LT910001 (Tom), as you know, I recently mentioned this proposed merge while at WP:Med. I stated there, "I would have merged the content by now if it weren't for the poor sources used at the Human vaginal size article. Then again, there are not a lot of good sources on that topic."

Do you think that we should add all of this material, including these poor sources, to the Vagina article? This is a case where WP:MEDDATE comes in; the part that states: "These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or few reviews are being published." But I don't see why we should merge all of this WP:Primary source material into the Vagina article. Adding a bit of it, per WP:Due weight, would be better. If it's covered in one or more books (we can obviously check Google Books to see if the content is there), then I would be more comfortable merging this material. I don't like the Human vaginal size article existing (per above) and I don't like the idea of merging it (per above), but a merge would be better than this existing as a standalone article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure if there are hard and fast rules in this, but what I think should happen is, as you say, the article is redirected to Vagina and any reputably-sourced information is merged, the rest is discarded. Or first discard the information, then merge. I am uncomfortable generalising the results of this study of only 39 women, particularly when it is described like this ("Both studies showed a wide range of vaginal shapes, described by the researchers as "Parallel sided, conical, heart, [...] slug"[3] and "pumpkin seed"[4] shapes."). So I think we should just merge what you can and then discard, or discard and then merge. What are your thoughts? --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Your approach is a good approach. I'll look for better sources for the material in the article, and discard most of it so that it is more of a summary. Flyer22 (talk) 01:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Medref tag for section "Dimensions in the baseline state"

All the sources cited in the section Dimensions in the baseline state are primary and rather old, isn't there an up-to-date anatomy textbook or something that can be used to source this information? Zad68 02:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 31 March 2016

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Human vaginal size → Vaginal tightness – I've heard this phrase used more. Do you support or oppose a move? Ninefive6 (talk) 07:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppose move -- The Anome (talk) 08:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Vaginal size and vaginal tightness are not necessarily the same topic. Also, we have a Vaginal tightening article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose – New title suggestion doesn't seem to fit the article contents, at first glance at least; a more serious rationale would be needed if this is not the case. Dicklyon (talk) 06:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose non-humans also have vaginal orifices -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 10:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Withdraw; I withdraw my request. Ninefive6 (talk) 07:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.