Talk:Prostitution in Costa Rica

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Prostitution in Costa Rica article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Costa Rica Mid‑importance

	Costa Rica portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Costa Rica, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Costa Rica on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Costa RicaWikipedia:WikiProject Costa RicaTemplate:WikiProject Costa RicaCosta Rica articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Sexology and sexuality: Sex work Mid‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Sex work task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Merger Discussion[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge Sex tourism in Costa Rica into Prostitution in Costa Rica. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Formal request has been received to merge: Sex tourism in Costa Rica into Prostitution in Costa Rica; dated: March 2017. Proposer's Rationale: its about the same subject. @Dwanyewest:. Discuss here. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 16:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Dwanyewest, not opposed to merging, just merging under this rationale. These are not the same subject. Not all the punters in Costa Rica are tourists. Prostitution is a wider subject. If you think that sex tourism in CR doesn't warrant its own article, that's a different discussion (one that I'm not sure I'd agree with either). Hope I'm not being too pedantic. —A L T E R C A R I ✍ 11:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support No, they are not the same subject, but they are closely enough related and have similar material, so sex tourism would fit well as a section of the prostitution article. No need to split content when they can be covered in one comprehensive article, even if some components are more tangential. Reywas92^Talk 00:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I believe that the subjects are similar in nature. 16:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)Dwanyewest (talk)
Support The two subjects are not synonymous. However, it appears from the content of the Sex tourism in Costa Rica page that the article is essentially a subset of the material that a Prostitution in Costa Rica article should contain. There should be no difficulty with the content of the two articles being combined under a Prostitution in Costa Rica title. Another possibility, that Sex tourism in Costa Rica could be part of the Sex tourism article, does not seem consistent with the fact that the Sex tourism article is not divided into national sections. The Sex tourism in Costa Rica article is sufficiently large that it could unduly distort the Sex tourism article. The third possibility, that the Sex tourism in Costa Rica article remain as it is, is not consistent with the precedent of article naming. The only other "Sex tourism in..." page is Sex tourism in Philippines which redirects to Prostitution in the Philippines. There is a Sex tourism to Thailand page, but that redirects to Prostitution in Thailand. Hence by a process of elimination the proposed merger seems the best option. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Both articles have a large overlap of content so merging and rationalising the content would make sense to me --John B123 (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-merger cleanup[edit]

I have performed the above merger as a full-content paste merger because the new material seems both relevant and complementary. There may now be some opportunity for rationalisation and re-organisation of the article, but it is not obvious to me how to do so. For instance, does the AIDS content belong in the main article or the "Sex tourism" section? If anyone else wishes to help with the post-merger cleanup, please feel free to do so. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 12:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few changes to clean things up a bit John B123 (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]