Talk:Vagina

Human-centric

The article lead presents the article as if it were on vaginas in general, when most of it is specifically about human vaginas (except for the bit at the end), which have notable differences from the vaginas of other animals. I think that there should either be clarification from the outset (e.g. with the about tag) that this article focuses on human vaginas, or else develop the article to accommodate for non-human vaginal discussion. --Humorideas (talk) 12:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. We need an article solely about vaginas in mammals, as well as one about vaginas in humans. The problem is most people who go to the vagina page, are looking for the human vagina, and this is a high traffic page. So we have a few possible name options:

• 1. This would be the standard convention, but the problem with this combination is people looking for the article on the human vagina will keep being sent to the animal article.
  • Vagina (human): for humans
  • Vagina: for all vaginas
• 2. This would send the majority of users to the page they are looking for, but they would have to be redirected through a redirect, and the names are ugly
  • Vagina (human): for humans
  • Vagina (mammals): for all mammals
  • Vagina: a redirect to Vagina (humans)

There's some more potential ways to go, but you get the drift. I think first a separate article should be made about all vaginas, then content here that is not about human vaginas be moved there, and then we should worry about the naming.OakRunner (talk) 01:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Most of our articles are human-centric because individuals who read these articles are, as we know, humans (unless one believes that extraterrestrial life is out there studying us) and are usually looking for the human aspects of these topics. Also keep in mind that vaginal anatomy and other topics about the vagina have been studied significantly more in humans than in non-human animals. A lot of topics on Wikipedia that are human-centric are mostly that way because the topic has been studied significantly less in non-human animals. As such, we usually keep the non-human animal material in the same article under the heading In other animals, or, as Humorideas prefers, under In non-human animals. WP:COMMONNAME is also a reason, despite the redirect factor in cases that don't take readers to a disambiguation page. In other cases, it's also because a term refers more to humans than it does to non-human animals.

I'm against splitting this article...until it requires splitting, which may never be the case. Not only should the In non-human animals section be developed before any split is considered, so should the article in general. The only reason that the Human penis article was created, as separate from the Penis article, is because there was just so much human penis material in the Penis article. Yes, the Vagina article has significantly more human material than non-human material. But it's still a relatively small article in general, and, like I stated, it should be developed more (significantly more) before any split is considered.

Also, it wouldn't be best to have an article titled Vagina (mammals) while the other is titled Vagina (human); humans are also mammals. Just having an article titled Vagina to cover mammals in general, while directing readers to the article specifically about human vaginas would suffice. But then again, I'm against a split for the reasons stated above. As for the "About" template, I would prefer that it use "primarily" if, until the In non-human animals section is significantly expanded, we are going to tell readers that this article is about the human vagina. "Primarily" should be included in that case because this article is about non-human animals as well, no matter that it's currently only a little about them. Flyer22 (talk) 04:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree we are no where near the point of needing a separate article, but I believe if we do get to a point where a split is necessary it would be best just to simply leave this article titled Vagina for humans, and another titled Vagina (mammals) for mammals in general. I don't see an issue with having an article for humans specifically, and one for mammals, since while we are indeed mammals, the mammal article would not need to exclude us, it could(and would likely need to) include information on the human vagina, but it wouldn't be the main focus.OakRunner (talk) 05:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

If it were needed, I obviously agree that there wouldn't be a problem with having an article specifically for human vaginas and one for mammal vaginas in general; I was of course speaking of the titles (in reference to the human/mammal wording). But now I better understand your point. And, yes, if a split were done, I'd prefer that the article about human vaginas remain titled Vagina...instead of Human vagina or Vagina (human). Flyer22 (talk) 06:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and I meant to add that I do know that there is precedent for having non-disambiguated titles focus on information about humans, and the disambiguated titles focus on non-human animals, such as with Pregnancy and Pregnancy (mammals)...and Menstruation and Menstruation (mammal). Flyer22 (talk) 03:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Good to know.OakRunner (talk) 04:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I thought you knew about this precedent and that that's why you suggested "mammal" as part of a disambiguated title, OakRunner. Flyer22 (talk) 05:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Nope, just heard of it now from you. On an unrelated note, it would be great if we could get this to featured article status as it is one of the most viewed pages on Wikipedia.OakRunner (talk) 05:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Getting it to WP:GA status would need to happen first. That is, I'm not familiar with any article that skipped the WP:GA process to go right to WP:FA. I know what it would take to get this article to GA status, but it may be months before I'd start undertaking such a task. There is a lot that this article should cover. Flyer22 (talk) 06:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 December 2012

Footnot[7], greys anatomy isnt a reference Hollypov123 (talk) 09:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

While the footnote ideally would include a page number and edition information, Gray's Anatomy is among the most reliable of references. Rivertorch (talk) 11:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Sideways Pictures

Why are all the pictures sideways? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.225.222 (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Guinness record?

I want to print about The Guinness Record on this topic. I mean Tatuana Kozhevnikova - the strongest vagina in the world (14 kg). What do you think about? Or creat new article? Night Rain 5 (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2013‎ (UTC)

Lol. But no. We got rid of trivia sections a long time ago. It's better this way because if you're unable to incorporate it into the article, then it doesn't belong into the article. Anything notable could have a page of its own and, a world record like that hardly seems notable. Monkeytheboy (talk) 02:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge from Human vaginal size

FYI, it is proposed that content from Human vaginal size be merged into this article. Zad68 02:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: The discussion is taking place at Talk:Human vaginal size, and it's the result of this discussion at WP:MED. Flyer22 (talk) 02:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Bald Vagina?

Good day fellow wiki people. Ive noticed the vagina in the picture is bald. This is not a natural as vaginas do have some hair, unless of course, they've been waxed.

good day sirs

Strictly speaking, the vagina is hairless. You are thinking of the vulva. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Genital

'Unlike men, who have only one genital orifice, women have two, the urethra and the vagina.'

This is the first occurrence in the article of the word 'genital' which needs to be wikilinked thus: 'Unlike men, who have only one genital orifice, women have two, the urethra and the vagina'. 121.222.35.118 (talk) 08:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)