Talk:Sex position

{{edit semi-protected|Sex position|answered=yes}}

Add :Category:Sexual intercourse 202.134.11.235 (talk) 10:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

:{{done}} [[User:CanonNi]] (talk|contribs) 13:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

What is that supposed to mean? Whatever it does mean, it seems subjective and/or not in an encyclopedic tone Theanswertolifetheuniverseandeverything (talk) 23:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

:{{reply-to|Theanswertolifetheuniverseandeverything}} There are wikilinks for penetration within the article. Are you not finding them helpful to address your questions? Wikipedia doesn't shy away from content because it relates to intimate sexual contact, so not sure what your basis is for claiming that the tone is not encyclopedic. Fabrickator (talk) 09:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

::The issue isn’t with what penetration is. It’s about whether the phrase maximum penetration is clear. To me, the most obvious interpretation is deepest penetration. But this is not immediately clear and this seems like a strange way to express this. It also seems to imply that deep penetration is the canonical measure of “how much” (and how good, owing to the vagueness of the term) penetration (there) is. I would instead write something more explicitly about depth, if this is what was intended. Anselm Schüler (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I've expanded the section on contraception and sexual activity to clarify some misconceptions and improve phrasing, with a brief request for chatGPT to help me improve upon what was there. However, this topic is medically and socially significant, and I recommend that someone with more expertise review the entire article for accuracy, completeness. People with inadequate sexual and reproductive education will find there way to this page and some misunderstandings or false information could impact their lives greatly. Ken Zug (talk) 17:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:Please don't use ChatGPT - see the points made in WP:LLM. Also, it would be best to improve the material with sources. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I didn't leave it as chatGPT wrote it. I have used those sorts of tools enough to know they're not necessarily any more reliable than a Wikipedia page, but like a wikipedia page they can be very useful tools for saving time and finding direction as long as you're willing to self verify as you work. I used ChatGPT to help me find brief unambiguous guidance and establish a tone. No sources were used, I requested that when I described my goal to reframe what was there. As I said in my note I wanted a subject matter expert to get on it. My stance was that the state of that section is potentially problematic for some of our inadequately educated population, a group that I won't deny could include myself on this and many other things... Something different even if incomplete needed to be there in the meantime. It wasn't great and it isn't now, but imagining a non zero chance that it could result in "pregnancy by misinformation," I felt it should be changed ASAP. I requested review and revision for that reason, not having time or inclination to become a subject matter expert myself. I'd like to point out that Chat GPT went beyond the parameters of my to advise me to add the request the subject matter review on this talk page...I wasn't exactly in erudite mode when I encountered it, it has been years since I thought about editing a wiki, and I probably wouldn't have thought about it on my own. The point: Unless you'd like to add sources for what was there already please let it be changed, edit it to your satisfaction (Crossroads, I see you edit them a lot, so I assume it's not simple pedantism that made you revert it), or remove it completely from the page as it really could be better to not bring that section up at all if not done right. I'll probably check next time I think about it while looking a Wikipedia and put it back to what I did if no one else acts on this. Ken Zug (talk) 22:16, 30 May 2025 (UTC)