Talk:Vulva

Do we really need this? isn't there already a fairly comprehensive article on naughty bits somewhere? I fixed up some of the writing, but I dunno if it was worth it. Thoughts? CreamTwoSugars 10:50, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I would say keep it in case any Conservapedians want to secretly find out something about the vulva, but they have Wikipedia for that. Keep it for the CP-mockery or delete it for it's lack of whatever. Super Josh "crying into a flannel"  10:55, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
 * You need a better rationale than "well, Conservapedia doesn't have it" really. Wikipedia is extensive and will have articles on individual sections of anatomy, just merge and redirect into the more general article.  A rmondiko V  User_Talk:Armondikov 10:57, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
 * (EC)Look, I'm the noob, but it strikes me that this is an example of the kind of forced, stale CP-mockery that may have been worth a little chuckle in 2007, but is pretty lame now. "Teh eebul Andy on teh conservative Christian CP won't let you say 'pussy' on his innertubes!1!!!eleven111!!!" I think RW could be doing better now.CreamTwoSugars 11:01, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
 * "forced, stale CP-mockery that may have been worth a little chuckle in 2007, but is pretty lame now"


 * ...That's kind of all we have now. Neveruse513 11:11, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
 * hands up all those who've got one! 11:13, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
 * (I agree with Sweet & Milky)

Toast and coffee--surely a match made in heaven. Or at breakfast, at least...CreamTwoSugars 11:25, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Okay, redirected to... ern... cunt. Did we not have a discussion whether that was appropriate as the main article?  A rmondiko V  User_Talk:Armondikov 11:19, 16 April 2009 (EDT)