Talk:Copulation/Archive 1

Mating
Mating inlcudes the key phrase "also to raise their offspring." Copulation has nothing to do with that. Two separate pages required.--Richardb43 12:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to Sexual intercourse
I'm changing this redirect target from Mating to Sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse seems more appropriate. For example, the Merriam-Webster dictionary entry for copulation is simply: It's true that the same dictionary lists, for mate, copulate, as a synomym. However, that suggests that Mating might require a hatnote directing readers to Sexual intercourse. It does not suggest that redirecting copulation to Mating is preferred over Sexual intercourse. --Noca2plus (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * to engage in sexual intercourse

Article in own right
Sexual intercourse, both as an article and as a term, refers to a human activity, while Copulation refers to all animals in which the male injects sperm in to the female. Cites spiders, from an excellent zoology book. Other examples: Thinking about it, I could nearly do a GA on what I already know - but I have 2 projects on the go already. If someone redirects it again, any one for ANI? And if I lose, I'll be back. --Philcha (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * cephalopods (ooh, those arms)
 * many terrestrial invertebates - arthropods, flatworms, etc.
 * Any one for cannibalism? Mantises do it, spiders do it, even little mosquitoes do it.
 * "Sexual intercourse" can also be used to refer to copulation among non-human animals, as that article makes clear. And as I stated on your talk page, I'm not seeing why this article should exist, considering that the only way it is distinguished from sexual intercourse is that it sometimes refers to procreation only -- sexual reproduction between males and females. But then again, so does sexual intercourse. They are largely synonymous, as those same sources show. This is why Copulation has redirected to Sexual intercourse for so long. Why didn't you simply add this information about spiders there? I'm not seeing how Copulation will grow too much bigger, and be distinguished from sexual intercourse, unless it starts to have information about procreation only and regarding all animals. And if it doesn't grow in size soon, I'm sure someone will redirect it again. Flyer22 (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Your definition that it "is the process in which males of many species introduce sperm into the females body" is only one aspect of the definition, as the term generally just means sexual intercourse. Flyer22 (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * In that case you'd need to (re-)structure a package of articles, e.g.:
 * At the top level, all phyla in which copulation appears. General advantages and disadvantages for animals. Etc.
 * Then in other articles about major taxa, sections about copulation (often in "Reproduction ...").
 * Sexual intercourse should be re-titled "Human ..." if it includes the content about ethical and religious aspects.
 * Same-sex copulation needs a big think, as its function in non-human animals (?only mammals) varies. --Philcha (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure what you mean. There is no need to retitle Sexual intercourse to Human sexual intercourse, as "sexual intercourse" refers to all animal sexual activity. The fact that the term is usually reserved for humans is all the more reason to keep it titled Sexual intercourse. I'm saying that we do not need a Copulation article, as "sexual intercourse" covers copulation as well. Anything about copulation can go in the Sexual intercourse article. We do have an In other animals section there. That section can be expanded with subsections and the like. And if the information you are looking to add is only about non-human animals reproducing, which it seems it is, it can go in the Mating article. The Mating article also has a better definition of copulation when it comes to the narrow, procreative definition of copulation. I am not seeing a strong argument for keeping the Copulation article, as distinguished from sexual intercourse. And not when the Mating and Sexual intercourse articles already exist. The Sexual intercourse article is quite clear: "Sexual intercourse, also known as copulation or coitus, commonly refers to the act in which the male reproductive organ enters the female reproductive tract. The two entities may be of opposite sexes, or they may be hermaphroditic, as is the case with snails." That first line is sourced to the Encyclopædia Britannica. And we have that same source, among various others, showing that sexual intercourse refers to sexual activity of both humans and non-human animals, and is the same thing as coitus/copulation when referring to reproduction. Flyer22 (talk) 19:32, 8 April 2011
 * "Copulation" is the standard term in zoology. "Mating" has a different meaning, related to "Copulation" but has a longer time-scale (from searching for mates to support of offspring), and more emphasis on behaviour and ecology than on anatomy and physiology. I'll complete my current projects then do the job on Copulation. --Philcha (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Mating" covers "copulation"; it covers the same thing, except with a wider scope (as you just stated). Thus, I am not seeing how you are arguing that it has a different meaning. The fact remains...you are speaking of sexual reproduction, and the Mating article covers sexual reproduction -- of animals, whether same-sex reproduction or not, as well as plants and fungi. And the sexual intercourse article covers copulation. "Sexual intercourse," in fact, covers human and non-human animals. So, again, I am not understanding your insistence that the Copulation article should exist. You are ignoring the sources above -- the fact that sexual intercourse and copulation are largely synonymous. You are ignoring the fact that your definition of copulation is inadequate. There is no way that this article can be distinct from Mating and Sexual intercourse. There is no reason that this information should not be in either article, or in both. Flyer22 (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge We have many terms is English that are exceedingly similar to one another but may have slight variations in meaning. IMO the best thing to do is have a single page. Than begin the article with a section on classification and have a subheading defining / detailing what these minor differences. Per WP:MEDMOS we have a section on "In other animals" this is where copulation would be dealt with. If / when this section becomes to large it could than be summarized and split off. The word copulation till that time can be redirected to that section. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, James. Thanks for weighing in. "Copulation" doesn't just refer to non-human animals, though. So I would advise against it being redirected to that section only. Just redirecting to Sexual intercourse is enough. Flyer22 (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Per WP:MEDMOS" and concentration on medicine and human zoology is a major problem all over WP. --Philcha (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean, but I'm starting a WP:RfC below. It will help bring other editors in on this matter, so that they can comment. You and I have already commented, so others can just look at what we've already stated on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Should the Copulation article exist?
Opinions are needed on whether the Copulation article should exist. One argument is that, "Sexual intercourse, both as an article and as a term, refers to a human activity, while Copulation refers to all animals in which the male injects sperm in to the female." The other argument is that "copulation" does not always only refer to reproduction, "sexual intercourse" and "copulation" are largely synonymous, and that this is why "copulation" is already covered by the Sexual intercourse article. Thus, any information on it should be merged there (or to the Mating article) and the Copulation article should again be redirected to Sexual intercourse.

For those viewing this on the RfC page, the arguments are made above this section, and below, on the Copulation talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

View of Philcha
Sexual intercourse rightly describes the religious and ethical aspects, which, so far as we know, apply only to humans. Same-sex intercourse appears among humans, chimpanzees, bonobos and dolphins, but AFAIK is physically impossible to invertebrates. "Mating" is harder to pin down. It includes searching for and selecting mates, and parental care of offspring (scorpions are devoted mothers, see File:Scorpionwithyoung.JPG). But mating behaviour can be celibate (e.g. Gandhi) or same-sex (including parental care in some cases). If merged, the result would be ridiculously long. On a lighter note, if the articles were merged under Sexual intercourse, the lead image would have be of an insect, as there about 1.5 speccies of insects! --Philcha (talk) 08:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Copulation" and "Sexual intercourse" are related but distinct, and the same applies to "Mating". "Copulation" is the standard term in zoology for the process that immediately precedes insemination. It applies to several phyla, mostly invertebrate, for example arthropods, molluscs (see cephalopods), flatworms and annelids. Humans are only a part of one phylum, chordates. The processes are very different, for example the females of some insects and spiders eat the males during copulation.
 * I note we also have Animal sexual behaviour - how much of the material you are envisaging might be able to be placed there? I guess I'd see an advantage in fewer, better articles.Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Copulation and sexual intercourse are not distinct. I have provided sources that show they are not distinct. Philcha, you have shown nothing to show they are distinct. It's silly to say that they are distinct when both are used to refer to sexual intimacy, and sexual intimacy in the hopes of sexual reproduction. It does not matter that "copulation" is the standard term in zoology for the process that immediately precedes insemination; it is still largely synonymous with sexual intercourse. Further, your statement that "copulation" is the standard term is not backed up by any sources. Plenty of researchers studying sexual behavior of non-human animals use the words "sexual intercourse" and "mating." Just because sexual intercourse encompasses religious and ethical aspects...it does not make it distinct from copulation. Of course it covers those aspects since the term encompasses human sexual activity, as well as non-human sexual activity. "Mating" is not harder to pin down. It includes sexual intercourse/copulation and reproduction, and extends things a little. Your material can more than fit there. And, no, we do not have to include insects in the lead in the Sexual intercourse article if your Copulation information about spiders is merged there. Sexual intercourse covers all animals. Insects are animals too. The lead is for summarizing, per WP:LEAD, not mentioning every animal that engages in sexual intercourse/sexual reproduction. If merged, the result would not be ridiculously long, unless you create significant sections mostly focusing on just about every insect. And you should not. You should summarize. And there should be no WP:UNDUE (undue in terms of the In other animals section focusing more so on insects than on any other animal). And you can also take this information (or some of it) to the Mating article. So far, you have given no valid arguments for keeping the Copulation article or for not merging your material to the Mating article. You also have the Animal sexual behaviour article, as Casliber pointed out above. That article addresses exactly what you want to address. Flyer22 (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

View of User:Jmh649
We need to try an avoid having different pages occurring at each synonym of a meaning. Sexual intercourse and copulation are similar enough that they should be dealt with on the same page as these terms are frequently used interchangeably. The small differences (if reliable sources can be found to substantiate them) can be discussed in the first section of the article named "definition". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I am leaning this way too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Very reasonable. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is already known that I support this view. As I stated above, copulation and sexual intercourse are not distinct. I have provided sources that show they are not distinct, while Philcha has shown nothing to show they are distinct. My longer reply is in the Philcha section. Flyer22 (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jmh649's view. Zoo  Pro  14:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * At first glance, the only reason to split these articles would be for length reasons, per WP:FORK. Even then, you'd need clear disambiguation or completely new titles to distinguish which aspects were covered in each.  Also, as said above, the Definition section can lay out the different uses of the terms in their various contexts, reducing the need for formal separation.  That said, whatever Philcha knows should be added to the article, regardless of whether it has its own title. Ocaasi c 00:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

View of User:Kaldari
This is a tricky question. Obviously in most cases copulation and sexual intercourse mean the same thing, however this is not the case 100% of the time, and they are typically used in different contexts. For example, in entomology, copulation often refers to the act of physical coupling (i.e. clasping or holding), whether or not there is actual "sexual intercourse" in the strict sense (insemination). So, for example, two male moths can copulate, but not have sexual intercourse. However, that's something of an edge case I suppose. The real difference is context. Even though copulation and sexual intercourse mean virtually the same thing, "copulation" is rarely used to describe human sexual activity, and "sexual intercourse" is rarely used to describe non-human sexual activity, but this is purely by convention, not by definition. So how do you resolve that in the context of Wikipedia? I'm not sure. The only thing I do know is that we currently have too many articles on this subject and most of them are rather poor quality. Probably better to consolidate some of them. Kaldari (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Good points. And thanks for weighing in. I'm pretty sure that this is why Doc James stated that any differences could be addressed in a Definitions section in the Sexual intercourse article, and that these terms are not distinct enough to warrant separate articles. Like you stated, copulation and sexual intercourse mean virtually the same thing. I'm wouldn't say a Definitions section is needed just to cover a small sometimes-difference as this, though. If a Definitions section is created, it would be best to also detail there how some forms of sexual intercourse/sexual acts are not considered "real sex." This was briefly touched on in the lead for some months, but is no longer there, and the article is lacking without the debate of what constitutes "real sex." The only thing I worry about with that is too much overlap of information that is already found in the Reproduction and sexual practices section. Flyer22 (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to mention all the material at sexual reproduction. Kaldari (talk) 22:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant to state this earlier: I would say that the Sexual reproduction article can stand on its own, as plenty of beings sexually reproduce without engaging in sexual intercourse, but there is also the fact that there is the Reproduction article and Asexual reproduction article. Looking at all three articles, it doesn't seem that we need three articles to cover all that. It could all be covered in Reproduction, until it needs to be split off. Flyer22 (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, asexual reproduction is actually a pretty complex subject, so I could see a reason for needing a stand-alone article on that as well. Kaldari (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

View of Tijfo098
The titles need to be worked out, but I think two different articles are justified, one human-centric and the other not, just like we have brain and human brain. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

View of 195.137.93.171
Intercourse is a very wide term - "Interpersonal communication, any kind of human communication and/or interaction." >100 years ago it just meant 'conversation'.

Interpersonal sexual communication, any kind of human sexual communication and/or sexual interaction.

It would be very useful to keep 'intercourse' wide eg flirting and 'copulation' narrow ie "The thing itself", to quote Brave New World.

Unfortunately legal usage takes the widest term and gives it the narrowest meaning. --195.137.93.171 (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to Sexual intercourse committed
Looks like I stuck my foot in it nicely by performing the redirect today without being aware of the discussion here. As it stood, the article looked too much like a stub and especially since the redirect target listed "copulation" as a synonym in the lead. Feel free to revert this, I recognise that the topic is a complex one, especially when approaching invertebrate biology and the like. -Agamemnon2 (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * That's nice. Does it mean Sexual intercourse will be dominated by invertebrates, with the lead pic and most of the others being of invertebrates? --Philcha (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * One can only hope :) Seriously though, it seems like most of the opinions above were leaning in that direction anyway. Kaldari (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I've thrown down the gauntlet at Talk:Sexual intercourse. Kaldari (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So what? The article "sexual intercourse" remains human-dominated, but this confusing redirect gave rise to clueless edits like []. Maybe, mating will be a better target, indeed? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Article created and redirected again
recreated this article. His version can be seen here. Per my and others' old commentary above, I reverted it and am still against there being a Copulation article. I still see such an article as an unnecessary WP:Content fork. I don't see that JaKomensky's creation justifies a separate article. Acting like "copulation" is something that non-human animals do and "sexual intercourse" is something that humans do is splitting hairs. The only difference is that the term sexual intercourse is more so used to refer to humans while copulation is more so used to refer to non-human animals (specifically in the reproductive sense). And this terminological difference is made clear in the Sexual intercourse article. We already have the Animal sexual behavior article specifically for non-human animals. What JaKomensky added here can be added there instead, and I will do that now.

Doc James, what do you make of JaKomensky's material? Has your opinion on this matter changed? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I moved JaKomensky's material here. I will also alert Talk:Sexual intercourse to this latest development. If this needs to go through another WP:RfC, it will, but I'd rather that it doesn't. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I recreated this page because: 1) Copulation is a crucial sequence of sexual behavior; 2) Copulation is only a sequence of sexual behavior; 3) In non-hominid mammals, copulation is controlled by specific innate neurobiological circuits (cf here; 3) in humans, the neurobiological control of sexual intercourse is quite different (the differences are particularly important for women, where the innate reflexes of immobilization and lordosis are no longer functional, sexual intercourse is no longer uninhibited only during ovulation...). 4) The sources mentioned in the discussion page are only short definitions, without neurobiological data ; while in the article, I have described precisely the neurobiological processes, with the corresponding scientific articles.
 * With these explanations, could you recreate the article? I still have a lot of neurobiological data to continue to develop it. Thank you. JaKomensky (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * IMO sexual intercourse and Animal sexual behavior are sufficient. Why can the material not go in animal sexual behavior? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If there's too much material for Animal sexual behaviour (which should probably be renamed "Sexual behavior of animals"), perhaps it could go in Sexual behaviour of mammals (or Mammal sexual behaviour if you prefer). Kaldari (talk) 02:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * JaKomensky, will you consider why editors have been opposed to creating a Copulation article? I take it that you've read the previous arguments? It is odd to have the terms sexual intercourse and copulation point to two different articles when they are very much synonymous. The synonymous factor is why copulation is mentioned as a WP:Alternative term in the lead of the Sexual intercourse article. It's why we go over the definitions in that article. It is fine to note in the Sexual intercourse article that the term copulation is more often used to refer to non-human animal sexual behavior, but to actually have a Copulation article in addition to a Sexual intercourse article? It is not only confusing...but it implies that sexual intercourse is for humans and copulation is for non-human animals. I don't see why the content you want to add can't be added to the existing articles. Your content is talking about animal sexual behavior in addition to the specific act of copulation. If your neurobiological sexual content is about non-human animals, it can go in the Animal sexual behavior article. If it's too much, we can downsize that article (see WP:SIZE) or split your content off into a Neurobiological effects of animal sexual behavior article. We have a Mechanics of human sexuality article, for example; it focuses on the biomechanics of human sexuality. Although the Mechanics of human sexuality article is very small and could be merged into the Human sexuality article, it currently exists without being problematic. If you have any neurobiological sexual content about humans, that can go in either the Sexual intercourse article or the Human sexual activity, or the Human sexuality article. But keep WP:MEDRS in mind. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Doc James and Kaldari, perhaps a Copulation (zoology) article is in order. If we look at WhatLinksHere for the word copulation, the link is mostly used when referring to non-human animals (which, per above, is no surprise). And even though we have an "Other animals" section in the Sexual intercourse article, the article is indeed mostly about humans and this leads editors to WP:Pipelink the Animal sexual behavior article with the word copulation (see here, for example), or to WP:Pipelink "Sexual intercourse#Other animals" with the word copulation (as I have done at times). Editors are not quite sure which article to link to when the word copulation is used to refer to non-human animals. Having a Copulation (zoology) article would remedy this. We could then link to this article in the hatnote of the Sexual intercourse article and in the Other animals section of that article. My only concern would be that editors might feel that "Copulation" needs to become a disambiguation page, with the two entries being the Sexual intercourse article and the Copulation (zoology) article, and I'm not sure that a disambiguation page would be best. But, yeah, there is the Sexual intercourse article, the Human sexual activity (formerly Human sexual behavior) article, and the Human sexuality article for humans. It would not hurt to have a Copulation (zoology) article in addition to the Animal sexual behavior article to address non-human animals. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Copulation can refer to human and non human. As long both meaning remains I am fine. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Doc James, yeah, of course the term applies to both humans and non-human animals. I've obviously argued that. I'm simply stating that a Copulation (zoology) article would remedy the aforementioned linking problem. Would you be okay with a Copulation (zoology) article? The term copulation can continue to redirect to the Sexual intercourse article or be made into a disambiguation page to point to both the Sexual intercourse article and the Copulation (zoology) article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with that as long as we don't have separate articles for "copulation" and "sexual intercourse". Kaldari (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Created. Hopefully, this article and the Mating article do not essentially become the same topic. Given how small the Mating article currently is, I feel that its spin-off articles random mating, disassortative mating and assortative mating should be merged into it. Those articles currently are not too big. A merge would be fine. But that's another discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Flyer22 Reborn and JaKomensky that the copulation article should be transformed into a disambiguation page. Eagerly waiting for other's response. Sharif Uddin (talk) 02:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sharif Uddin, this has already been settled. I did not state that the Copulation page should be a disambiguation page; I suggested it, and I clearly noted that I wasn't sure if a disambiguation page would be best. There is no need for a disambiguation page now. Doc James, I take it you feel the same? The Copulation (zoology) article now exists. Since it exists, and copulation is the WP:Alternative title for sexual intercourse, how is it beneficial to send readers to a disambiguation page? What would the disambiguation page say? That sexual intercourse, also known as copulation, is for humans? And that copulation (zoology) is specifically for non-human animals? If so, that's not accurate since sexual intercourse concerns more than just humans and the Sexual intercourse article has an "Other animals" section to specifically address non-human animals. It's just that, per previous comments above and WP:Summary style, there is now an article specifically for non-human animal copulation. If readers want to read about non-human animal copulation, they will be pointed to that article after arriving at the Sexual intercourse article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Should all be dealt with at the "sexual intercourse" article. They are the same thing. We have a section here called "Other animals" Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:36, 4 September 2018‎ (UTC)


 * I think what Doc James means (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) is that the Sexual intercourse article is wider in its approach of the term copulation. The Sexual intercourse article has a Definitions section to explain the term to readers, and an "Other animals" section to specifically address non-human animals. And if readers want to go to the article about non-human animals, they can. But that article is not general in its approach of the term copulation. This is similar to other articles we have, where the default page for the term gives readers an understanding of the term in general, and then points them to an article on a subset or aspect of the topic, such as the topic as it pertains to other animals. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems that in case of the articles of sexual intercourse, most of the users prefer more consensual sence rather than rational or intellectual sence, which sometimes seems as tends to be more loyal in support of commercial view of sexual intercourse rather than all out disciplined academic view of sexual intercourse or copulation, human sexual intercourse and animal sexual intercourse with all the social, biological, scientific, ethical, religious, philosophical, personal, educational, academic and commercial views decorating step by step academic classification of articles and sections according to academic importance. I think there should be a different sexual intercourse or copulation article as well as copulation (zoology) article which already exists, a different human sexual intercourse article and a different animal sexual intercourse article. It is strange that the directors of world's biggest online encyclopedia doing this act which is beyond uderstanding, and why all the knowledge loving wikimaniacs can not getting to a consensus about disciplined and academic classification of sexual intercourse or copulation articles, when the wikipedia is a completely devoted non-profitable organization. Please don't judge my comment as any kind of attack, it's only my own opinion, and pardon me and take my apology if I say anything wrong, nonsense or uncivil. Sharif Uddin (talk) 07:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not understand all of what you are arguing. Regardless, I stand by what I've stated to you above. You are suggesting unnecessary articles. And per what I, Doc James, Kaldari and others who have stated similarly have made clear above, we do not need all of those articles. They would be unnecessary WP:Content forks (redundant forks, in fact, since having both an Animal sexual intercourse and Copulation (zoology) article makes no sense). Forking like that is a no-no. We already have Human sexuality, Human sexual activity, Sexual intercourse, Animal sexual behavior, Copulation (zoology) and Mating, and that is enough. Per all of the discussion seen above, WP:Consensus exists for this setup. I would nominate any forks on this matter for deletion, and they would be deleted. I suggest you move on from pressing this topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * @Flyer22 Reborn, I want to know in the section stimulation of the article sexual intercourse, it states, In most of the mammals, the anatomy of the reproductive organs and some circuits of the nervous system are specifically organized for heterosexual vaginal copulation. Does these mammals anatomy ar organized for both heterosexual vaginal and anal copulation or only for heterosexual vaginal copulation. If only vaginal, then the word vaginal should be added after the word heterosexual. Sharif Uddin (talk) 06:45, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I reverted here (followup note here) for reasons noted in the edit summary. As for your latest question above, considering what the Definitions section of the article states about the term copulation, there is no need to state "vaginal copulation," just like there is no need to do so in the Copulation (zoology) article. It is clear from the text that anal copulation, oral copulation or any other type of copulation is not what is meant. Like the Definitions section makes clear, although the term copulation can refer to any sexual activity between opposite-sex or same-sex pairings, it is "generally defined as the sexually reproductive act of transferring sperm from a male to a female or sexual procreation between a man and a woman." It is not usually used to refer to anal sex or oral sex, or any other type of sex. When anal sex, oral sex or any other type of sex is meant, sources usually specify. The common definition of the term copulation is why we lead with "or coitus or copulation" in the first sentence of the Sexual intercourse article. Like this 2015 "Human Biology" Cengage Learning source, page 339, that is used in the article states, "Coitus and copulation are both technical terms for sexual intercourse. The male sex act involves an erection, in which the limp penis stiffens and lengthens. It also involves ejaculation, the forceful expulsion of semen into the urethra and out from the penis. [...] During coitus, pelvic thrusts stimulate the penis as well as the female's clitoris and vaginal wall. The stimulation triggers rhythmic, involuntary contractions in smooth muscle in the male reproductive tract, especially the vas deferens and the prostate. The contractions rapidly force sperm out of each epididymis. They also force the contents of seminal vesicles and the prostate gland into the urethra. The resulting mixture, semen, is ejaculated into the vagina." This is why it makes no sense to have both a Sexual intercourse and Copulation article, unless the Copulation article is specifically focused on non-human animals and specified as such via its title, which it currently is. It's called "Copulation (zoology)," not "Copulation" as though "copulation" does not also refer to humans or is different than sexual intercourse. "Zoology" can apply to humans as well, but it more often than not applies to the study of non-human animals. The sources in the Copulation (zoology) article are not speaking of oral sex or anal sex, or other sex acts. We have the Non-reproductive sexual behavior in animals article specifically for sexual activity among animals that is not of a reproductive nature. On a side note: There is no need to ping me to this talk page since this talk page is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:03, 24 September 2018 (UTC)