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. SuperJosh "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. ArmondikoV^{d hominem} 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! _and marmite 11:13, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

(I agree with Sweet & Milky) _and marmite

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? ArmondikoV^{d hominem} 11:19, 16 April 2009 (EDT)