# Talk:Vagina

Okay, I'll try again with a split request. For the comments above that Wikipedia would be better served by merging Human Penis and Penis together, I tried that already, over in that talk forum, because I agree, but there I got the same mix of procedural opposition and preference for the status quo I'm seeing here. When I tell women about this, the existence for 14 years now of a Human Penis article but no Human Vagina article, I see on their faces the same mix of anger, disgust, and disappointment. People who don't edit, but who daily use, Wikipedia can see this as a gross (I mean the word both ways) injustice. I'll keep trying to help Wikipedians see the same. Dcmcdcm-wiki (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
That's a fair argument, but it would be better served by creating a draft for a "human vagina" article and then using it as evidence a split would be good. Moving this particular article would just be disruptive considering it concerns all forms of it, and has done so since its inception in 2001.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
@Dcmcdcm-wiki
'Suport that the different treatment of the articles is concerning, but I think a merge of the "penis" and "human penis" articles is a better solution to the matter Azahad (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Support - very clearly two separately and individually notable subjects, just as with the pair of "pens" articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:39, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia's Human Penis article has for 14 years contained all the developmental, physiological, evolutionary, clinical health, and cultural information relevant to that human organ—all in a separate location from Penis, which focuses on animal penises. This article provides much of the same information about the human vagina, but holds it in one location concerned with both humans and animals. While that honors the work going back to Carl Linnaeus to place humans among the world's animals, Wikipedia's decision to create a distinct Human Penis article without a Human Vagina article goes against WP:NPOV, creating the argument that the human penis deserves an article of its own, but the human vagina—for unclear and unspoken reasons—does not. I propose the information in this article relevant and applicable to humans be split into a new article. Dcmcdcm-wiki (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - as people brought up above in the RM discussion, maybe it's not the lack of a Human Vagina article, but actually the error of there being two for Penis and instead, there should be a merge of Human Penis into Penis instead. Raladic (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
Support the concept. I'd be fine with a split from an article that is 8 709 words. Also, the merge discussion for human penis into penis appears to have a consensus against the merge. However, I do not like the nominator's rationale because it appears to be ideologically motivated (no, an article having a subarticle for a specific animal while a similar article does not isn't an NPOV violation), which should and will not be the reason for changes on Wikipedia. ZZZ'S 06:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Oppose, there doesn't seem to be much content to split that isn't relevant to humans. Maybe we need an article like "Genitalia in non-human animals" or something to cover possible content from zoology and so forth. Crossroads -talk- 22:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Support, for the same reasons for having a human penis article; namely that the human version of this organ is a special case that is of particular interest for human beings. There is wide variation in female genitalia between species, and ours is not typical. I'd suggest that the vast majority of this article be moved to human vagina, and the "Other animals" section should become the start of the general species-independent "Vagina" article. — The Anome (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
In common usage "penis" and "vagina" refer to human organs, and people who put that in the search box are in most cases going to be looking for articles about them in humans. If anything, it should be "vagina" and "vagina (zoology)", akin to sexual intercourse and copulation (zoology). Crossroads -talk- 21:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment I wonder whether this could be a sock account by Autisticeditor 20. The user had made an arbitrary split in the 'Human vulva' article earlier in 2024 by removing the redirect; later restored. They also reappeared with quite a few socks in the following months. Piccco (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Support The penis article contains a lot of information on other animal's penises. This is missing in the vagina article admittedly, but that should be added when the articles are split. Animal clitoris exists. This isn't a question of sexism but rather a lack of information on non-human genitalia, which is of zoological interest. In sort, this article as is severely lacking in detail. Horsers (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Snow close Barely coherent request (the suggested title isn't even correctly capitalized) by a probable sock. The logistics of the proposed split are unclear; the article currently is overwhelming about humans, with a few paragraphs about other species. This discussion ought to be closed for the time being, without prejudice towards someday creating a separate, less human-centric article. — Anonymous 19:36, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Note The parallel discussion at Talk:Human penis to merge Human penis into Penis resulted in strong opposition and a SNOW close, due to significant nonoverlapping content. Until we have enough content in Vagina to support two articles…agreed on SNOW close. Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:20, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Support the concept of a split.  This article's sources are overwhelmingly about human health, making them inappropriate sources for the current zoological scope of the article.  However, perhaps it would be best to keep the article name "Vagina" and create a "Vagina (zoology)" article as Crossroads suggested. —Of the universe (say hello) 12:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
Support The split. The petitioner's request is much more reasonable under a split. Sources are primarily about human health. And I support What Crossroads suggested. I don't have any other Suggestions. (I don't know how this works and i hope this works) Tankishguy (talk) 01:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose while there is split articles between human penis and penis. I don't see how it would work out for vagina. for insect penises there's tons of different shapes and functions. however for vigina, splitting it would leave too little of information for it. Different animal vaginas do have different properties sure, but those can be discussed on their respective animal or insect articles.
JamesEMonroe (talk) 09:07, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
Support per consistency with the existing structure of having a Human penis article separate from Penis, a separate Human vagina article would better. Much of the current article is human-focused in content and sources, with minimal zoological breadth. I also agree with suggestions above that the main article could retain the title "Vagina" and a new Vagina (zoology) article could be created later if warranted. Chronos.Zx (talk) 06:22, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per comments above that, unlike the penis article, a zoologically-based vagina article likely would not have sufficient standalone content to be justified. Someone is willing to take a shot at writing such an article for review. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:24, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
Comment: These kinds of articles should not be separate and rather should primarily focus on the organ in humans and have a section dedicated to the organ in other animals, as is done in most articles about major organs such as Bladder, Bone, Cervix, Ear, Esophagus, Gallbladder, Heart, Large intestine, Lung, Liver, Ovary, Pancreas, Prostate, Seminal vesicles, Small intestine, Spleen, Stomach, Testicle, Tongue and Uterus. If there is a need for an article focusing on the organ in general, than the article about the organ in humans should have the non-disambiguated name and the article about it in animals should be disambiguated, as is the case with Kidney and Kidney (vertebrates). Cyrobyte (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Oppose This page gains nothing from being separated into 2. Unlike the Human Penis and Penis articles this article doesn't have enough information to make a non-human variant. Also the argument for symmetry doesn't make sense when you consider that the Penis is not just a male Vagina, it would be more accurate to make a Human Clitoris which sorta already exists since Clitoris is already the human version with Animal Clitoris being a page. It also doesn't make sense when you consider the Penis articles were made by different editors than these ones so they don't need to be identical. As for the sexism argument, you could argue that the Vagina is actually so much more human than the Penis that they needed to make an article specifically to talk about the Human Penis for fairness. The argument goes both ways. SIUnitOfUselessnes (talk) 22:16, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
The comparison to the penis articles doesn’t really apply here. The split that happened 14 years ago was based on the specific amount of content available for those pages at the time, not because of any inherent analogy between the two topics. Different editors, working under different circumstances, made that decision for the sake of readability. There’s no indication that bias or sexism was involved. Re-splitting this article now would likely result in one page with very little information and another page stripped of useful context. Ultimately, that would not serve readers. SIUnitOfUselessnes (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
Support animal vaginas are very different to human ones, let's differentiate explicitly. Lajmmoore (talk) 16:38, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Vagina's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "VB":
From Vaginal steaming: Vandenburg, Tycho; Braun, Virginia (10 October 2016). "'Basically, it's sorcery for your vagina': unpacking Western representations of vaginal steaming". Culture, Health & Sexuality. 19 (4): 470–485. doi:10.1080/13691058.2016.1237674. hdl:2292/41205. PMID 27719108. S2CID 8176129.
From Mammal: Roman AS, Parsons TS (1977). The Vertebrate Body. Philadelphia: Holt-Saunders International. pp. 396–399. ISBN 978-0-03-910284-5.
From Uterus: Romer, Alfred Sherwood; Parsons, Thomas S. (1977). The Vertebrate Body. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Holt-Saunders International. pp. 390–392. ISBN 0-03-910284-X.
From Marsupial: Romer, Alfred Sherwood; Parsons, Thomas S. (1977). The Vertebrate Body. Philadelphia, PA: Holt-Saunders International. pp. 396–399. ISBN 978-0-03-910284-5.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

This error has been cleared, it was introduced at 18:14, 3 December 2024 and resolved at 16:51, 4 December 2024 by the same editor. TSventon (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Vaginal introital laxity which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 13:00, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Should we have a vagina picture anatomy like https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anatomie_der_Vagina.JPG@ WikiGrower1 (talk) 02:37, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

That way we know what it is like with the real human body not just a diagram WikiGrower1 (talk) 02:39, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
The article already includes photos similar to that one. Grayfell (talk) 07:26, 15 November 2025 (UTC)