This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology 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.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology 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.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nursing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Nursing 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.NursingWikipedia:WikiProject NursingTemplate:WikiProject NursingNursing articles
Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion
Support – There seems little reason to maintain two separate article forks on essentially the same subject. Reify-tech (talk) 20:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
I can't see the point on having a separate page on external collection devices so would agree with move to merge. [Nick Francis, Clinician].
Agreed. Consolidation seems reasonable and beneficial. 2601:1C2:5201:F180:3857:6710:F70C:ACD3 (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
This is a specific device. The other is a category of devices. So oppose Neutral
Urine collection devices would include suprapublic catheters and urinary catheters. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Oppose a specific device vs category is enough to counter the nom as stated without more reasoning - such as size of articles, SPINOUT etc. Widefox; talk 13:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Support merge, as the scope of both articles covers the full range of External urine collection devices, although the current External urine collection device article is weighted more towards discussing Condom catheters in the body of the page, while Urine collection device focusses more on other devices. Both pages are small, and so the content is easily accommodated on one page. Neither page exclusively covers one device. Doc James is right that that the scope of Urine collection devices could well include suprapublic catheters and urinary catheters, which means that "External urine collection device" is the better target for the current contents of these pages. An alternative might be Non-invasive urine collection device, but its probably simplest to stick with the page names we have rather than introducing an additional name into the mix. Klbrain (talk) 12:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
Would require merging in Urinary catheterization and suprapublic catheter aswell which would make the article overly long IMO. We need an overview page that provides a summary of each and than links out to these articles for more details. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Doc James: Regardless of whether an overview page is needed, it still seems reasonable to merge these two non-invasive procedures, which are distinct from the invasive techniques you refer to. The content of just 3 articles (Urinary catheterization, Suprapubic cystostomy and some merged page for UCD and 'external urine collection device') can be adequately linked in the text and through the 'see also' section, if necessary with a brief distinguishing statement. Klbrain (talk) 08:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Suggest merge from Stadium buddy, a long-standing unreferenced stub that also seems to be a coatrack for advertising a product. Consolidation, on the basis of short text, context and overlap seems warranted. Klbrain (talk) 09:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
