Jump to content

Talk:Vagina

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tom (LT) (talk | contribs) at 00:36, 2 January 2018 (→‎Proposed content). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article


Recent edits

Barbara (WVS), regarding this, I've addressed that the wording in the article has already been thoroughly worked out and now it's just a matter of me filling some things in and tweaking the article before I nominate it for WP:GA.

I've also asked you to discuss significant changes beforehand because you and I often do not agree on your editing style, including your copyedits. Even your copyedits tend to be significant. I would rather not have an edit war going on at this article. Recently, you made a number of mistakes or otherwise problematic edits when editing this article. As seen at Talk:Vagina/Archive 10#Recent revisions, I addressed them on this talk page. You did not respond. So what am I to think? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And when it comes to copyediting things that Tom (LT) has already copyedited, I have to state that I choose his edits over yours. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara (WVS), regarding stuff like this, why can't you discuss first? Why should I have to wait? You are adding STI and vaginal flora stuff to the Microanatomy section. We already have specific sections for these aspects. When it comes to stuff like this, this, and this, "firstly," "secondly" and "thirdly" are important for context. This is also an aspect of the article that was thoroughly discussed. We are identifying the three layers, and it is not an "obvious" matter to readers. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I am done, it will probably pass GA with flying colors. You told me once (sorry no diff to send you to) that it was 'okay' if an article contains the same content in another place. After I am done adding this important content, I will go back through to make certain that the appropriate amount of redundant content remains. If you are concerned that all this editing means that the article is not stable, then consider this effort of mine to collaborative and that I am an editor assisting you in getting it to GA. Then it is not contentous. The only one who is lending a contentious 'tone' to the article is . Respectfully and with Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 20:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Barbara (WVS), regarding what you stated on your talk page, it is not collaboration when you are not listening and are reverting to your preferred wording. You talk about grammar issues, but you make many when editing. You made a number of them when editing the article on November 27, 2017‎. One editor cleaned after you. So did I. And another was worried about your edits via email. You are changing things that have been thoroughly discussed among multiple editors. What makes you think that your wording and formatting is so much better than theirs? Tom (LT), for example, knows what he is doing on topics like these. Why do you think that his edits need to be copyedited by you? When I point to your mistakes, you get defensive and state that you are here to build an encyclopedia, as if I am not; you did that on your talk page minutes ago and clearly above. Have you forgotten how you acted when multiple editors, including Tom (LT), Iztwoz and I told you that the anus is not a part of the vulva? You refused to listen. You stick to your guns even when you are wrong. And now you act like your edits are needed for the article to "pass GA with flying colors." They are not. Tom (LT) is our top anatomy editor, has gotten a number of our anatomy articles to WP:GA status with flying colors and stated that this article is ready for GA. I told him that I wanted to work on it some more. That is how much I care. What you refer to as "my talk page essays" and your argument that "responding eats up valuable time which is better spent inserting updated and relevant content" is beyond dismissive and arrogant. You stated pretty much the same thing at Talk:Nipple, where you were also wrong. It is clear that my so-called talk page essays are part of the communication and review process that we are supposed to do at Wikipedia. If you would not make so many mistakes and be so stubborn about them when an editor is trying to correct you on them, you would not be subjected to my so-called talk page essays. If you talked more and were not so dismissive, you would not make so many mistakes. How many times must Iztwoz, Doc James, Jytdog and I clean up after you? I am not sure what is your deal with this odd competition thing you have going on with me, which is something you had since the day you stalked me and was blocked for it under your Bfpage account, but it is beyond silly and I wish that you would get over it.
As for your claim that I "told [you] once that it was 'okay' if an article contains the same content in another place," that was a recent discussion and I was clearly talking about overlapping content being in two different articles. As for lending a contentious tone to the article, going by what the sources state and with WP:Due weight is not "lending a contentious tone," except to those who disagree with the literature. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Message recieved. You've given me much to think about. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 22:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Checking in

What is considered a major change? I read the archives containing all the discussions related to the article and the other reviews of the editors and don't see any conflict between my editing and their comments.

This is not accurate:

"The wall of the vagina from the lumen outwards consists firstly of a mucosa of non-keratinized stratified squamous epithelium with an underlying lamina propria of connective tissue."

This is accurate:

"The wall of the vagina from the lumen outwards consists firstly of a mucosa of keratinized stratified squamous epithelium with an underlying lamina propria of connective tissue."

better:

"The vaginal wall from the lumen outward consists of a multi-layered epithelium." and so on.
Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 23:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Barbara (WVS), see Talk:Vagina/Archive 7. Yes, the layers and cells aspect was hotly debated because sources state different things on the matters. As that discussion shows, there was also a RfC on it. Don't just skim the discussion. Read enough of it to see what the issues were and how they were resolved.
"Non-keratinized stratified squamous epithelium" is correct, according to this 2012 "Pathology of the Vulva and Vagina" source, from Springer Science & Business Media, page 6, that is used in the article. Other sources state the same. Why are you stating that "keratinized stratified squamous epithelium" is correct? Also, "multi-layered epithelium" is vague. Are you suggesting we state "multi-layered epithelium" and then clarify?
As for a major change, my concern is when you change things that take away context (deleting words and content that should be retained) and when you make changes that conflict with what sources state or what the literature generally states. I take WP:Due weight very seriously. So my issues with your edits are more about significant changes than major changes (although significant changes can be major changes). But, yes, I would prefer that you discuss major changes first. I think major changes are easily identified; they include adding a decent amount of content, deleting significant pieces and changing the format of the article. That stated, I'm not stating that everything you are thinking about adding needs discussion first. When it comes to edits like this, my issues are the following: You quoted a source without adding WP:In-text attribution. Quoting a source without the use of in-text attribution can be a WP:Copyvio problem. And you added a link within the quote, which is something to typically avoid per the MOS:LWQ subsection of MOS:QUOTE. Better to just summarize the source anyway. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keratinized

The review article on the epithelium of the vagina, specifically states that the top layer of the epithelium consists of "keratinized, ennuecleated, dead and flattened cells". In Brown's book, vaginal epithelium is not mentioned on page 6 or 7. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 00:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you feel the need to start a different section about this when I just replied in the above section about it? Are you seeking input other than mine? If so, I will go ahead and again ping fellow anatomy editors Tom (LT) and Iztwoz. I'll also ping Axl, who edits significantly less than us, but is very knowledgeable on matters such as these.
Like I stated above, this 2012 "Pathology of the Vulva and Vagina" source, from Springer Science & Business Media, page 6, states differently. It states, "The surface epithelium is of nonkeratinizing stratified squamous epithelium type." It (this Brown source) is indeed speaking of the vaginal epithelium.
As for other sources, this 2010 "Cytology and Surgical Pathology of Gynecologic Neoplasms" source, from Springer Science & Business Media, page 1, states, "The vagina is a tubular organ consisting of nonkeratinizing stratified squamous epithelium mucosa, muscularis, and adventitia. Labia minor and inward to vaginal introitus and hymen are mainly covered by nonkeratinizing squamous epithelium associated with no or rare sweat and sebaceous glands." This 2010 "Diagnostic Cytopathology" source, from Elsevier Health Sciences, page 556, states, "Under normal conditions, the vagina is lined by stratified squamous non-keratinising epithelium throughout." This 2012 "Sexually Transmitted Diseases: Vaccines, Prevention, and Control" source, from Academic Press, page 81, states, "The lower FRT (vagina and ectocervix) is covered by a multilayered non-keratinized stratified squamous epithelium overlying a basement membrane and muscular layer." This 2013 "Gynecological Imaging: A Reference Guide to Diagnosis" source, from Springer Science & Business Media, page 687, states, "At the lower 2/3, a nonkeratinizing stratified squamous epithelium." This 2015 "Handbook for Principles and Practice of Gynecologic Oncology" reprint source, from Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, page 125, states, "The vaginal wall is composed of three layers: the mucosa, muscularis, and adventitia. The inner mucosal layer is formed by a thick, nonkeratinizing, stratified squamous epithelium."
That's six academic sources stating "nonkeratinizing." I'm not sure how you are confusing matters, but keratinizing stratified squamous epithelium occurs in the dry surface. Are you reading your review wrong? If not, it deviates from what the literature usually states on this matter. I suggest you wait for others to comment on this topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All I can say is that the relatively recent review article I have states that the top epethelial layer is keratinized. Also the cells themselves are 80-90% keratin. I can't see how anyone else would even want to comment on this. This is not a hill to die on, at least not for me. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 01:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Barbara (WVS), you are doing it again. You are not listening! And because you are not, you are going to make a mess of this article unless I take our disputes to WP:ANI because you are editing disruptively and are engaging in WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT behavior. It appears that your response to what I stated in the #Recent edits section above was just talk. You are trying to challenge what the preponderance of the literature states by stating that your relatively recent review article states differently. What review article? And exactly what does it state? Quote it. Given that you were so mistaken at the Vulva article about the vulva's relation to the anus (which still boggles my mind), I do not have confidence that you are reading the source correctly. Perhaps Doc James or Jytdog would be willing to review whatever source you are talking about. Either way, what one source states, even if recent, does not trump what the vast majority of other sources state. That is what following the WP:Due weight policy means. And WP:MEDDATE is clear about not falling prey to WP:Recentism. The vast majority of sources state "nonkeratinizing" and "non-keratized." Am I to believe that the literature has gotten it wrong for so long and that the new source is correct? Or could it be that the new source is wrong, or has made a typo? Or that you are reading it wrong?
You stated, "I can't see how anyone else would even want to comment on this. This is not a hill to die on, at least not for me." Any editor wanting to get this right should want to comment on it. And you are the one who brought it up and has repeatedly insisted that "nonkeratinizing" is wrong. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we are defining "top layer of the epithelium," "the surface epithelium" and similar differently. Or maybe it's just a matter of sources stating different things, which is always problematic, as in the case of the vaginal artery topic. Not only do sources state different things about the vaginal artery, they state different things about the number of vaginal layers, which is why there was that big debate over it and the article currently states, "Some texts list four layers by counting the two sublayers of the mucosa (epithelium and lamina propria) separately." And above, some of the sources are focusing on the lower vagina when speaking of "nonkeratinizing," while others are not.

When it comes to the stratum corneum, sources usually don't state "stratum corneum" or "stratus corneum" with regard to the vagina (as a quick, basic Google search and a search on Google Books shows), which is why I am dealing with stuff like this and this. If anything, those words are mainly used when talking about the rat vagina and the like. However, you added a 2014 "The Structure of the Human Vaginal Stratum Corneum and its Role in Immune Defense" source. It obviously mentions "stratum corneum." And while the Vagina article currently states that "the vaginal epithelium is divided into layers of cells, including the basal cells, the parabasal cells, the superficial squamous flat cells, and the intermediate cells," this 2017 "The Human Microbiome" source, from Academic Press, page 59, states, "The layers of vaginal epithelium include the basal, superbasal and stratum corneum cells."

I suggest waiting for Tom (LT) to weigh in so that we can the sort out the wording and get things right. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara, which review article are you referring to? Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be this one.[1] Which says in figure one "vaginal stratum corneum... usually not keratinized" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's the correct 2014 review article that lists the different layers of the vaginal epithelium.Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 22:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It than goes on to say "After menopause, the vaginal epithelium thins, glycogen stores diminish, and the SC shows variable degrees of keratinization.[16, 27, 28] Keratinization of the vaginal SCmay also occur as a result of trauma, for example in cases of uterine prolapse."

So yes this edit has concerns[2] IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

? Not all agree seems to mean the same as a debate. Not a problem. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 22:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Doc James is not talking about your "Not all agree" edit. He is talking about your keratin edits. You were interpreting the source wrongly. He obviously was not referring to your "Not all agree" edit, which concerns a different topic/part of the article. Also, regarding this, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing others' comments, be careful not to break up an editor's comment. I went ahead and placed Doc James's signature in the spot you broke up. So now that signature is in two different spots.
Thanks for asking, Axl. And thanks for providing the text, Doc James. I always appreciate when you and Jytdog take the time to quote WP:PAYWALL sources for me or others. Misreading/misinterpreting the source in this case is obviously what I was concerned Barbara (WVS) was doing. It's partly why I've insisted that she take the time to listen. We need to take care not to have incorrect material in our medical and anatomy articles (or any of our articles, really, but especially these). When I post my so-called essay comments on talk pages, they are meant to explain and educate. Cases I challenge Barbara (WVS) on often are not "explain in a single sentence or a single paragraph" matter. I noted above that keratinizing stratified squamous epithelium occurs in the dry surface. A simple Google Books search shows that I am correct on that. Like this 2012 "Medical Histology: A Text-Atlas with Introductory Pathology" source, from Springer Science & Business Media, page 60, states of keratinized vs. nonkeratinized, "New cells are continuously produced by mitosis in the basal layers and gradually move to the free surface where they are eventually lost. As they migrate they pass through a series of stages of maturation depending on whether the epithelium will be keratinzed for dry surface, or non-keratinized, for wet areas. If this type of epithelium is to have a dry surface, as in the epidermis, the process of maturation is completed by the accumulation of a special fibrous protein, keratin, that eventually replaces all of the contents of each cell and that results in its transformation to a nonliving, tough, and relatively impervious plate that is finally shed. If the epithelium is faced with a moist environment, keratinization does not normally occur, and the sharply demarcated states in the maturation process are not apparent. The cells simply flatten as they approach the lumen but are still recognizable as cells, even in the most superficial layers."
I now await commentary from Tom (LT) about this matter, and Barbara (WVS) has also indicated that she will wait for Tom (LT) to comment on this before continuing to edit the Microanatomy section, but that section needs further edits because of the content Barbara (WVS) added. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, I get it. More sources say non-keratinized, so lets go with that. I'm not denying that the sources use the term 'non-keratinized'. I only added content that I found in the review article. I am perfectly happy to go along with the non-keratinized. Not all review articles agree with each other and not all books agree with each other. Thanks for fixing up the order of the threads and accompanying signatures. I didn't realize that had happened. I did not agree with waiting for Tom (LT) to weigh in before any more edits to the Microanatomy section on my talk page but since it seems pretty important, I certainly will do so now. Any suggestions on how to bring some calm to our exchanges? Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 23:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just a matter of more sources stating non-keratinized. What sources state that the vaginal epithelium is keratinized, other than in abnormal circumstances? It's not there in what Doc James quoted above. As for waiting for Tom (LT) to weigh in, I suggested on your talk page that we wait before continuing with that section. To me, it seemed that you agreed. You've clarified that you didn't, but will wait now. I'll hold you at your word. Regarding this, pings only work with a new signature. But Tom (LT) will weigh in. I've already left a message on his talk page about weighing in, and I've so far pinged him twice in two different sections on this talk page. As for bringing our interactions to a calm, I don't have any suggestions other than what I stated in the #Recent edits section. It is frustrating when I try to get you to see why you are in error about something and you get defensive and/or refuse to listen. It is frustrating when you dismiss my talk page comments as simply essays distracting from editing the article...when what I am stating in those "essays" are very important because they are meant to improve the article and hopefully your edits. I am not trying to condescend to you (not usually); it's just that I am very knowledgeable on the topics we clash on, and, when I see mistakes (whether it's mistakes that deviate from the literature, lend undue weight to something, are simply errors, or are otherwise problematic), I am passionate about fixing them. And if an editor insists on continuing with such edits, it becomes important to explain why the editor is wrong. Sometimes this will take a few paragraphs, especially when the editor has made a lot of edits that need addressing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am listening, I don't intend to be defensive. I thought others wanted explanations of the source. I guess not. What would you like me to say here? You write something, I respond. I wish there were some other way to communicate. Perhaps I give this impression since I don't check the talk page often enough? Perhaps it is because I typically don't reply with paragraphs? I don't know how to agree with you any more than I have already than to say: "Hey, let's go with non-keratinized". Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 00:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Barbara (WVS), you say that you are listening. But I told you in the #Checking in section above that you were wrong. After that, you created this section, which seemed to be created to get the input of editors other than me and to not respond to me directly. Getting input from others is fine, of course, but it should be obvious by now that when I challenge you on a literature matter, I have good reason for doing so. Anyway, I then provided a number of sources indicating that you were in error and asked if you are misreading the source. Your response was, "All I can say is that the relatively recent review article I have states that the top epethelial layer is keratinized. Also the cells themselves are 80-90% keratin. I can't see how anyone else would even want to comment on this. This is not a hill to die on, at least not for me." So it seems that not only did you misinterpret the source, you implied that I was making a big deal out of nothing when you were the one challenging me and when, yeah, getting this material right is a big deal. You came across as defensive, and you still do. Like I told you before at Talk:Nipple, this continues to happen -- I make some edits based on my knowledge of the research, you object in some way, and then I make my case on the talk page with sources and/or by pointing to a policy and/or guideline. You become defensive and essentially state that I am talking too much (which is a dismissive jab). We trade a few provocative words and then we part ways. It is not difficult to communicate on Wikipedia. All you have to do is stop and talk. And, yes, communicating on talk pages is important for reasons such as these. It is only time-wasting when it's not productive (for example, when one continues to argue something in the face of overwhelming evidence that they are wrong). One admitting that they are wrong does not have to be a bad thing. Anyway, I'd still like Tom (LT) to review the Microanatomy section and tweak it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this, I guess you just can't wait. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Barbara helpfully left links to a couple of sources on my talk page. (Thank you, Barbara.) I intended to comment on the sources here, but this now appears to be redundant. In short, I agree with Flyer22 Reborn. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah...which parts? Keratinization? I'm going along with what Flyer is saying about kerantinized as the word that should be used. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 00:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've been stating that "non-keratinized" is the wording to use, per the sources. Not "keratinized." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I guess my eyes are crossing and I mis-typed again. Another error. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 00:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: non-keratinized. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Tom (LT) stated that he does not have time to thoroughly go over the section or devote significant time to the article, but that he did "a quick skim and couldn't identify any major issues" with the section in question. Axl also reviewed the section. I had cut some of the section's content and tweaked it before suggesting that we wait for Tom (LT) to review it; so I am glad that it seems I cut and tweaked the section well enough. I will be looking over it more closely later. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Braxton Hicks

Braxton Hicks may not even be relevant in an article about the vagina since the false labor is felt in the uterus.

  • Braxton Hicks contractions are called false labor[1][2]
  • Braxton Hicks symtoms are different than the symptoms of impending labor.[3]

There are more, does it matter? Perhaps you can find many sources that state that Braxton Hicks is one of the symtoms of labor I would expect.

This is probably original research but I ended up at the hospital weeks before the birth of my children about five times with Braxton Hicks. I was sent home. My labor was not even close.

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 01:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this, this and this, the source notes Braxton Hicks contractions as a sign of nearing labor. So do many other sources. It can happen weeks or days before labor. For example, this 2010 "Maternal & Child Health Nursing: Care of the Childbearing & Childrearing Family" source, from Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, page 345, states, "In the last week or days before labor begins, a woman usually notices extremely strong Braxton Hicks contractions. Women having their first child may have great difficulty distinguishing between these and true contractions." So, yes, this is very relevant to the Childbirth section in the Vagina article. The text in the Wikipedia article was not stating that it happens during labor (and neither are sources supporting this aspect); so the "false labor" aspect is beside the point. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we want to remove it exactly? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Braxton Hicks don't have much to do with the anatomy of the vagina. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 22:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They have to do with this topic per what I stated above. You have yet to give a valid reason to exclude this material. So unless you or someone else does, I will be re-adding it and my text will be clearer regarding when Braxton Hicks contractions happen. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Message received, but what does Braxton Hicks have to do with the vagina? I would prefer to have a valid reason to retain the content on Braxton Hicks. Thank for being willing to clarify the text when you add it back into the article. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 23:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I already stated that Braxton Hicks contractions are a sign of nearing labor, and cited the fact that "women having their first child may have great difficulty distinguishing between these and true contractions." The article already lists other signs of nearing labor. There is no need to exclude Braxton Hicks contractions, which are confused for labor. That is my argument. We can wait and see if others weigh in. So far, it seems that Doc James is for including the material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

____

References

  1. ^ https://www.womenshealth.gov/pregnancy/childbirth-and-beyond/labor-and-birth
  2. ^ https://medlineplus.gov/ency/patientinstructions/000508.htm
  3. ^ http://www.kemh.health.wa.gov.au/brochures/consumers/wnhs0012b.pdf

Lymphatics

I can understand the reason for removing the section title of Lymphatics. I was preparing to add additional content and references regarding the significance of the three separate sites of drainage related to propensity of infection and cancer to spread through these lymphatic channels. It should eventually be enough content to adequate fill a section. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 13:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made this and this edit because the "Blood and nerve supply" section already covers lymphatics and you added redundant information. Why should we have a separate "Lymphatics" section, as if it is distinct from "Blood and nerve supply"? Why can't additional material simply go in that small section? Having a "Lymphatics" section, as if it is separate from "Blood and nerve supply" is confusing. And why should cancer material go there? Why shouldn't the cancer material go in the "Clinical significance" section where cancer material already is? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm conflicted on whether this (the cancer aspect of it) should remain in the "Blood and nerve supply" section or be moved to the "Clinical significance" section, but, for now, I'm going along with its placement in the former. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moved. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Microanatomy

From "Microanatomy", paragraph 3: "The epithelial covering of the cervix is continuous with the epithelial lining of the vagina. The vaginal epithelium is divided into layers of cells, including the basal cells, the parabasal cells, the superficial squamous flat cells, and the intermediate cells." Two references are provided: DC Dutta's Textbook of Gynecology, and Modern Colposcopy Textbook and Atlas.
Modern Colposcopy does not seem to explicitly state that the vaginal epithelium is continuous with the cervical epithelium. (Perhaps this is obvious for readers of the textbook?) Nevertheless, Dutta does mention this. Therefore I recommend using only Dutta as the reference for the first sentence. (Although Dutta uses the word "continuous", I wonder if "contiguous" would be more accurate?)
Dutta does not mention the parabasal cell layer. Therefore I recommend removing this reference from the second sentence. Axl ¤ [Talk] 02:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, Axl. Feel free to make the changes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. :-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am slightly concerned that reference 32, Fundamentals of Toxicologic Pathology, is based on rats. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was added by Barbara (WVS). I'm glad you spotted it. Something like this is one reason I suggested that the section be reviewed and noted that I was going to thoroughly look over it again (although I don't have access to WP:PAYWALL sources). In the #Keratinized section above, I stated, "When it comes to the stratum corneum, sources usually don't state 'stratum corneum' or 'stratus corneum' with regard to the vagina (as a quick, basic Google search and a search on Google Books shows), which is why I am dealing with stuff like this and this. If anything, those words are mainly used when talking about the rat vagina and the like." So, yeah, I'm concerned as well, and suggest that it and the sentence it supports be removed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All that stated, the stratum corneum is commonly discussed when speaking of the epidermis (which, like the Epidermis article states, is 95% keratinocytes) and basal cells, and it is the case that researchers commonly use rats in relation to human anatomy (especially for things that have a possibility of affecting humans). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources state "vaginal skin," usually when speaking of vaginal surgery, but skin is usually considered "the soft outer tissue covering vertebrates," which is why keratin is so often associated with skin. As noted before, the vaginal epithelium only becomes keratinized if exposed to air/the dry surface, which is considered an unusual case. Of course, the epithelium dries after menopause. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

citation consistency

reference info for Vagina
unnamed refs 36
named refs 221
self closed 188
cs1 refs 260
cs1 templates 258
dead link templates 1
webarchive templates 2
use xxx dates mdy
cs1|2 mdy dates 25
cs1|2 ymd dates 1
cs1|2 mdy access dates 175
cs1|2 mdy archive dates 173
cs1|2 ymd archive dates 1
cs1|2 last/first 11
cs1|2 author 4
cs1|2 vauthors 211
List of cs1 templates
  • cite book (162)
  • Cite book (19)
  • cite encyclopedia (2)
  • cite journal (22)
  • Cite journal (23)
  • cite news (2)
  • Cite news (3)
  • Cite web (12)
  • cite web (13)
explanations

I have been asked by Editor Flyer22 Reborn to have a look at citation consistency in this article.

There were two invalid tag name errors. These were both introduced by Editor Barbara (WVS) who should check my repairs to make sure that I did the right thing:

  1. created with this edit and repaired with this edit
  2. created with this edit and repaired with this edit

I would suggest that in future, it is best practice to use meaningful names for the <ref>...</ref> tag name="" attribute. Name attributes like name=":1" convey no contextually meaningful information to editors who come after you.

I will fix the citation templates that are showing maintenance messages. Should I be doing anything beyond those fixes?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Trappist the monk. You know that I care about citation consistency, but I felt that simply stating so to Barbara (WVS) on this talk page would not be helpful. I have mentioned citation consistency to her before in the past. As for doing anything else for the article, what do you have in mind? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not much more than to make the cs1 templates consistent. The table at right indicates that there is a diversity of date and author styles that might be unified. The article has a {{use mdy dates}} template so that's an obvious first step.
You might choose an author style as the next step. WP:MED has a fondness, it seems, for Vancouver author style. While this article isn't strictly associated with that WikiProject, the WikiProjects that claim it are related to WP:MED.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sources at this article need to be WP:MEDRS-compliant for the biological and medical stuff; so anatomy topics are related to that WikiProject. As for style, what do you think of this sourcing style that I usually use for book sources? I simply use "author" and "authors." Quicker than "first" and "last" and two or more "first" and "last" additions in one reference. But when it's a news or web article, or a journal article, I usually use "first" and "last" format. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, quicker, but use of |authors= is discouraged (see the template docs) because the underlying Module:Citation/CS1 cannot reliably extract individual names from it for the citation's metadata (because editors are wildly inconsistent in how they write the value assigned to |authors=). Because of that, author names are not included in the metadata for templates that use |authors=. The purpose of the cs1|2 templates is to render consistent and correct citations for all readers – that includes those of us who consume the citations by reading them with our eyes and those who consume the citations by reading them with a machine via the metadata. You might have noticed that I have 'fixed' those two templates.
Because the article is WP:MED related, the Vancouver system seems appropriate and there is a tool to help you along:
Wikipedia Template Filling
Caveat: its a tool; tools are not omniscient and are prone to errors (because the data that they rely on may not be properly curated (incomplete of just plain wrong); because there's a bug in the code; because ...) so take a few moments to carefully proofread what the tool produces and make corrections as necessary. This same caveat, of course, also applies to the WP:RefToolbar and WP:Visual Editor citation tools – especially where they take data from WorldCat.
For cs1|2 templates that have a PMID identifier, the author list is available at the PMID page already formatted correctly for the |vauthors= parameter so its usually just a matter of copy and paste (sometimes necessary to cleanup numeric superscripts and to handle certain names (collaborations, transliterations of non-Latin text – but these are fairly simple tweaks).
But, you have to decide. It is not for me to do that for you.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let's go with the Vancouver system. Expansion of the article is mostly done anyway. I never use the tools for adding citations, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And media sources in the article will continue to be formatted with the typical "first" and "last" style? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I don't understand what you mean by media sources. So far all that I've tweaked is book, journal, and web citations – which are printed and on-line 'media'. So what is it that you really mean?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 01:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I simply mean the type of sources you see in the "In contemporary literature and art" section, which I didn't write most of. It has some sources like Slate.com, for example. I was also wondering about sources like this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the purpose of this exercise is consistency, why should the author-list for a Slate reference be written any differently from how we write an author list for an International Urogynecology Journal reference?
It is unclear to me what you mean by your last sentence. What were you wondering?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The same thing about media sources. Basically, I meant media and web sources in general. The sources that are not books or journals. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this and similar, I wasn't expecting the accessdates to be removed; I prefer them because they usually let editors know when the citations were added. They are a reminder of when I added what. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The puspose of an access date is to identify the date on which an ephemeral source was consulted. For those sources that have nil chance of changing from one day to the next (books; encyclopedia; journal, newspaper, magazine articles; any on-line something with a doi, etc.) access dates are unnecessary, do not benefit the reader, and add to the clutter that is the reference section. For ephemeral sources (web pages, on-line news articles, etc), an access date is important because it allows the reader to hunt down an archived copy of the page as it was on the access date.
If it is necessary to determine when you added a cs1|2 template to an article, there is a tool to help you. At the top of every article's history page is a link Revision history search. For example: say that you want to know when you added the Ferri's Clinical Advisor 2013 template. Copy the title (best from the wiki source because the template or browser may have modified the what you see), go to the history page and click the history search link and paste the title into the 'Search for' box. Click the 'Start' button and get the result.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 01:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know that some editors prefer not to use the acccessdate parameter for book citations, but others do. See this brief discussion from my talk page in 2016. One editor was opposed to them and another preferred them and agreed with me. It's not a huge deal for me, however, and I wouldn't want you to have to go back and add the accessdates you removed. So we can just continue to move forward without them. I think it's editors (instead of readers) who care more about accessdates, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I know I come across as curt to the editor who addressed me about the acccessdate parameter for book citations, but that's because we were having challenging interactions at the time. We're on slightly better terms now, but I've chosen not to ping the editor -- either of the editors -- here to comment further on their styles. It's better that I don't. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for fixing these errors. I have no problem modifying my practice of adding such references in the preferred formats. I can anticipate the problems that you have discussed to avoid them. I have been using VisualEditor to insert references and that script assigns the ref names automatically. It also formats book citations. I can certainly do this by hand. Not a problem, and I will gladly start doing so now. My intention is never to introduce errors and will work toward citation consistency.
Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 16:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This probably doesn't matter at this point, but most of the citations that have been corrected by Trappist the monk (thank you!) were not ones that I added. I am pleased that there is more consistency now. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 00:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He mainly is not correcting formats; he's changing them. But he has fixed some of your errors, such as the "defined multiple times with different content" pieces. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But, yes, since I wrote most of the article, most of the citation formats he's changing are ones I added. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vaginectomy and Vaginoplasty

The article probably needs descriptions of both. Basically, vaginectomy is the removal, and not reconstruction, of all or part of the vagina. Vaginoplasty is more like plastic surgery. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 00:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with including a little bit on vaginectomy, but I don't see that much needs to be stated about it in this article, certainly not more than what is currently in the article about vaginoplasty. The Vaginectomy article is currently small, and in-depth material on it should go there instead of here. This article should not have more on vaginectomy than the Vaginectomy article has. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've only included it in the list of modifications...with a properly formatted ref of which I am very proud. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 20:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's good. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As seen here, here and here, I added a brief mention of what vaginectomy is and tweaked its inclusion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cystocele

...has been updated with some very recent (2018??) review articlel refs. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ and Merry Christmas 00:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara (WVS) has stated that she plans to add some cystocele material to the article. My response was the following: "The Vagina currently has a brief mention of cystocele that I added. Why does the article need more than that brief mention? Why should it be given more detail than urinary incontinence, rectocele and stress, which are also related to aging and childbirth? I am going for WP:Summary style for sections in the article unless whatever content in question does not have its own Wikipedia article and needs more room in the Vagina article than other stuff because of that. Anyway, I will post your message at Talk:Vagina. And I see that Doc James has also edited the Cystocele article."

That stated, I'm not opposed to having some more cystocele material in the article. I'm just thinking of balance. We don't need to go in depth about every infection, disease or disorder that affects the vagina. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More than a brief mention would help readers understand what cystocele is and possibly get them interested in clicking on the article. And since it's related to urinary incontinence (frequent urination, overactive bladder or urge incontinence, depending on how the terms are defined) and sometimes rectocele, those two things can be seamlessly expanded right along with it. Let's just not get carried away with the expansion(s) since they have their own Wikipedia articles for further detail. I'll worry about tweaking the addition(s). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Missing -- stress

In the sentence: "Other vaginal changes related to aging and childbirth are urinary incontinence, rectocele, cystocele, and stress.[90]" I went to the source but didn't find 'stress' listed as a vaginal change. Is it supposed to be something else? Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ and Merry Christmas 20:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The source is referenced as being pages 688–690. Stress is noted on page 690 as an associated problem. I used the word related instead of associated. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking again, the source states "stress urinary incontinence." I will go ahead and fix that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Not sure how I missed the full "stress urinary incontinence" part since, for article editing, I usually re-read a source's text even though a lot of the text usually stays in my mind well enough after initially reading it, but there are some sources that state that stress can affect vaginal change. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stress information included with this edit. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Followup edit here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added physiology section

Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 21:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's odd. Why would physiology come under Function? For that matter, why would a section about hormones and microbiota be called Vaginal physiology? And I have to ask, did you proofread before posting? RivertorchFIREWATER 21:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If we consider the past editing history of this article, it has been my experience that content that I add may be moved-which is fine since collaboration works this way. The physiology refers to changes in metabolism, growth and other processes. The physiology article states: "normal mechanisms, and their interactions, which works within a living system." Best regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 21:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Barbara (WVS), I felt the need to revert. That Vaginal physiology section you added is redundant to what is already in the article. Look at it. All of it is already covered in the respective sections. The only thing I see worth retaining from that section is the the following: "Vaginal support structures change in composition after menopause. Specific collagens become altered in composition and ratios. It is thought that the weakening of the support structures of the vagina is due to the physiological changes in this connective tissue." And that can go in the section about aging, which is where I will move it.
As for the other content you added, I am thinking over you changing "a thin dense layer of connective tissue, and it blends with loose connective tissue containing blood vessels, lymphatic vessels and nerve fibers that is present between the pelvic organs." to "collagen, elastin, and adipose tissue; It also contains nerves blood vessels, and lymphatic tissue. The adventitia is continuous with and an extension of the endopelvic fascia located around the vagina. This flexible tissue layer can adapt to the movements of other pelvic organs." This is partly because of the detail/removal of previous text and because some of the language in that section was changed by Tom (LT) for simplification. I prefer medical terms and detail, but he is very concerned about simplifying text when we can make it easier to understand for readers. This is per WP:Technical.
And why remove "vaginal transudation, which initially forms as sweat-like droplets"? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also retained this for now, although I feel that its inclusion is unnecessary.
As for having a Physiology section, we commonly title the section "Function." We choose "Function" or "Physiology." See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Anatomy. Sometimes, as in the case of the Human brain article (an article I also worked on), we include both a "Function" and "Physiology" section (although we debated that, and that section may be merged at a later date). In the case of the Vagina article, physiology material is already adequately covered under the Structure and Function sections. And then, of course, we have the " Clinical significance" section for the clinical aspects of the physiology material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree with your mass deletion and I am requesting a third opinion. I put in hours of time finding the best, WP:MEDRS citations to substantially improve the quality of this article and a mass reversion is unacceptable. I am hoping that we will all see that collaboration is best for WP. Still, Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 00:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Barbara (WVS), as stated above, I reverted redundancy and restored material that is less redundant. I am also keeping Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Anatomy in mind. You created an unneeded physiology section. We don't create new sections for material that can fit into existing sections and especially not when the section also repeats aspects already covered by existing sections. You would do well to justify the need for a Physiology section -- explaining how it's not redundant and how any non-redundant material cannot fit into existing sections. For example, how is this not better placed in the "Effects of aging and childbirth" section, which already discusses menopause? And how does this not fit in the Secretions section? Redundancy and lack of organization do not help readers. To me, this is yet another case of you not listening. But I await other opinions. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that I'm not listening is hindering progress on this article and sounds like scolding or regarding me as an inferior. I listen, well read actually. Your sources are skewed toward out-of-date and sometimes inferior content. Some of the content in this article is out of date and needs to be updated with high quality sources that include subscription-based literature. When I insert content and a ref, it is almost always from a more recent, evidence-based, reliable and high quality source. I am interested in article improvement based upon the best sources possible. When you delete content in favor of inferior, out-of-date sources you are missing the chance to make this the article all that it could be. Physiology is a better and more descriptive term for the physiological processes. Instead the Function section should have been made part of the physiology section and not the other way around. Still, Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 00:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Barbara (WVS), well, you aren't listening. You stated, "[My] sources are skewed toward out-of-date and sometimes inferior content." In what way? Do read Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-09-03/WikiProject report and WP:MEDDATE. There is no need for a source from 2016 or 2017 for the vast majority of anatomy material. This is because anatomy is usually still the same as it was many years ago. If the content is still current knowledge, then the source is essentially up-to-date. I've tried to tell you this before. There is no need whatsoever to replace sources with newer sources in cases such as those. Newer sources are simply for show in those cases. See when you were reverted here at the HIV/AIDS article by Doc James? And that is a very important article about a virus/disease. Newer is not always better or necessary. You didn't listen then either. When it comes the medical aspects of the Vagina article, I have generally kept the sources within the five-year window noted at WP:MEDDATE. And I do not see where you have been replacing my sources anyway. You have been using new sources for content you've added. In the #Recent edits section above, I mentioned this odd competition thing you have when it comes to me. And it's showing yet again. I knew you would start off the new year like this. I was waiting. On your talk page, you recently posted, "Don't think of editing as a competition." It's time that you stick to that. As for the article setup, I obviously disagree. And there was no "other way around." The physiology material is already covered. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Left a note about this at WP:Anatomy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion continued

DYK that when you cite the Signpost article you are citing yourself? Also, the most current sources that I have found include the older sources as references! And (too many ands) the anatomy of the pelvic organs HAS changed. This is according to the more recent literature and this mostly due to the imaging studies with MRI. MRI has shown that some structures that were previously described (even by Gray) don't actually exist and that other structures that haven't been previously described now have names. In addition, the nomenclature for the anatomical structures is being standardized and the older references that are 'ok' don't use the standardized anatomical terms. Sure, we can use the older sources but why? And just because I get reverted doesn't mean I was wrong... When we can use high quality sources we should (even though some might disagree with that). My favorite reversion was when I inserted a reference from a graduate level gynecology textbook only to get reverted and told that an older, paramedic training manual was a good-enough source. Ah sure. I get reverted when I edit the leads of medical articles that are identified as needing translation. That is because it is a lot of trouble to go to the shortened versions of the articles for translation and bring them up-to-date or to admit that there might be a better reference for content in the lead.

There is still so much content missing from this article: fistulas, anomalies, supportive structures, better embryonic information. Please work with me. We can make this a good article, a better article. Let's not settle for 'ok' when it could be better. I would like to suggest that we use the uterus article as a template instead of the jumbled content that we have now, what do you say? Still, Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 03:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara (WVS), I don't think there is a need for a new reply in a different section. I have made this section a subsection of the previous. When it comes to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-09-03/WikiProject report, I am citing what three different anatomy editors (including me) stated. First, we have CFCF, who stated, in part, "Without insulting all to many people I'll make use of the pun: 'Anatomy is a dead science'. Apart from smaller advancements–macroscopic anatomy hasn't really moved in the last 100–120 years. New naming conventions have come with the TA, but for the most part–what stood true in 1890 about large scale anatomy is true today. This means certain aspects of WP:MEDRS are very hard to follow: for example we don't bother looking for 'reviews from the past 5 years' – because in the case there are any reviews at all they are often from 1970–80 at best. Any college level or more advanced text-book from the past 70 years should be a viable source for us." Then we have what Tom (LT) and I stated. I did not agree with CFCF about the "dead science" aspect, but I was very clear that "like CFCF has indicated, [anatomy] has not advanced as much as many other medical fields. This is primarily because so much of what scientists know about anatomy is the same as it was many years ago. For other topics, such as the human brain or aspects of female sexual anatomy, it's not always going to be the case that anatomy sources from 70 years ago are good to use. For example, for many years, scientists believed that the Bartholin's glands, which are located to the left and right of the vaginal opening, were the primary source of vaginal lubrication. These days, plasma seepage from the vaginal walls (vaginal transudation) are what the vast majority (if not all) of scientists believe to be the primary source of vaginal lubrication."
Unlike CFCF, Tom (LT) and Iztwoz, I do not cite Gray, mainly because I cite other textbooks and also because some sources differ on what Gray texts state, but the aforementioned editors cite Gray for valid reasons. And they can weigh in here for why that is. In the aforementioned Wikipedia Signpost, you can also see that Tom (LT) noted that Gray's texts can contrast what other sources state. If you think we are missing something at the Human brain article due to MRIs, then, by all means, make your case at Talk:Human brain. If you mean the Vagina article, then specify what we are missing MRI-wise at this article. You asked: "Why cite older sources?" I ask: "Why cite newer sources when they are not needed?" Why are you so stuck on newer being better? If knowledge on an anatomical matter is the same as it was years ago, why in the world is a 2017 source needed over, say, a 2010 source? The article currently states, for example: "The Bartholin's glands, located near the vaginal opening, were originally considered the primary source for vaginal lubrication, but further examination showed that they provide only a few drops of mucus." This is supported by a 2002 source. Why do we need a 2017 source for that? How is the quality of the article any lower because of that? It's not. Either way, when looking at the current state of the Clinical significance section (and discounting what you added), it's clear that (over the years) I have generally stuck to sources that are within the five-year aspect noted at WP:MEDDATE. But by "up-to-date," WP:MEDDATE does not mean that the sources need to be newer; it doesn't mean that I need trade out an older source for a newer source every couple or few years. It means that the content should be up-to-date when it comes to the text we are including. This is why it states, "In many topics, a review that was conducted more than five or so years ago will have been superseded by more up-to-date ones, and editors should try to find those newer sources, to determine whether the expert opinion has changed since the older sources were written." The content should be current knowledge. The sources I've included are very much WP:MEDRS-compliant. I do not need to trade out a 2013 source for a 2017 source simply for appearances' sake. Still, because some editors interpret WP:MEDRS wrongly in that way, which has been challenged time and time again, I sometimes trade out older sources for newer sources when it's not necessary. That is only for show.
As for reverting you and missing content, I stated to you before (recently on your talk page) that you should not take being reverted so personally. You've stated before that you consider being reverted harsh or sort of as an attack. Reverting you does not mean that I am attacking you or not working with you. When you are reverted, you should consider more often that you might be wrong. I sometimes consider whether or not I am wrong when reverting someone. Doc James was in the right to revert you at the HIV/AIDS article. A newer source was not needed in that case. You stated, "There is still so much content missing from this article: fistulas, anomalies, supportive structures, better embryonic information." A lot of the medical stuff you add to articles does not need to be covered in-depth at those articles, but rather only needs a brief mention in those articles and pointers to the main articles for greater detail. That is WP:Summary style. For example, like I stated above, we don't need a lot of cystocele stuff in this article. As for jumbled content, I see no jumbled content. Jumbled content is having menopause material in a number of different sections instead of in one main section with only a little in a different section (such as the needed, brief mention of menopause in the Microanatomy section). Mixing clinical significance content with general anatomy content, as you've repeatedly done, is jumbled content, which is why I have repeatedly re-located the material to the Clinical significance section. Notice that Doc James also often relocates material you add to articles? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As for the Uterus article, a better article to look at is the GA Cervix article. And do look at the date of the sources used there. The current state of the Uterus article is poor. Regardless, we do not need to set up these articles in the same exact way. It's about what setup works best for whatever article. There is more that can be added to the Cervix article as well, but it's easy to see that we let a lot of the in-depth material in that case be handled at other articles. Again, for the matter at hand, I am waiting for others to weigh in on the physiology section aspect and the sourcing arguments. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed content

Vaginal physiology

"Vaginal tissue is influenced by hormones secreted by the ovaries. Not only is hormonal influence evident in puberty, pregnancy, and menopause, there are changes to the vaginal tissue during the menstrual cycle. Most of these changes occur during week following ovulation until menstruation begins again. The vaginal mucosa and epithelium respond the changing hormones and vary in thickness and composition during the menstrual cycle.[1] It is thought that the vaginal microbiota influences the physiological processes in the vagina[2] The vagina responds to topically applied estrogen and become thicker.[3] Vaginal support structures change in composition after menopause. Specific collagens become altered in composition and ratios. It is thought that the weakening of the support structures of the vagina is due to the physiological changes in this connective tissue.[4]"

References

  1. ^ Wangikar P, Ahmed T, Vangala S (2011). "Toxicologic pathology of the reproductive system". In Gupta RC (ed.). Reproductive and developmental toxicology. London: Academic Press. p. 1005. ISBN 9780123820327. OCLC 717387050.
  2. ^ Smith SB, Ravel J (January 15, 2017). "The vaginal microbiota, host defence and reproductive physiology". The Journal of Physiology. 595 (2): 451–463. doi:10.1113/jp271694. ISSN 1469-7793.
  3. ^ Rahn DD, Ward RM, Sanses TV, Carberry C, Mamik MM, Meriwether KV, Olivera CK, Abed H, Balk EM (January 2015). "Vaginal estrogen use in postmenopausal women with pelvic floor disorders: systematic review and practice guidelines". International Urogynecology Journal. 26 (1): 3–13. doi:10.1007/s00192-014-2554-z. ISSN 0937-3462.
  4. ^ Walters MD, Karram MM (2015). Urogynecology and reconstructive pelvic surgery (4th ed.). Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders. pp. 60–82. ISBN 9780323113779. OCLC 894111717.
  • Per this sentence "It is thought that the vaginal microbiota influences the physiological processes in the vagina" why here when we already have a section on "vaginal microbiota" under "function"?Doc James
Not only does the vagina interact and support the microbiota, the microbiota interacts with the vagina and produces antimicrobial peptides that benefit vaginal tissue. That is a physiological effect of the microbiota on the vagina.Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 19:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under micro anatomy we says "When puberty begins, the epithelium thickens and glycogen containing cells are formed again, under the influence of the girl's rising estrogen levels" This sentence is not so much about physiology as about a specific treatment for atrophy "The vagina responds to topically applied estrogen and become thicker." and would go under clinical significance.Doc James
The epithelium is mentioned multiple times in the article. It is mentioned once in the clinical significance section. That is fine with me to move the content under clinical significance section. That doesn't completely solve the problem, if it is a problem, of the term appearing elsewhere.Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 19:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We already say "The vaginal mucosa and epithelium vary in thickness and composition during the menstrual cycle." under function section. So why say "there are changes to the vaginal tissue during the menstrual cycle" again?Doc James
By combining the sections, this will be eliminated. Function is 'what this piece of anatomy does'. Physiology is 'what are the biological processes that involve this piece of anatomy'.
Yes, lets combine the sections, good idea. It makes sense to combine the two. According to Wikipedia, function has a different definition than the Wikipedia article physiology. They are similar but not equivalent. Combining the sections would eliminate redundancy. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 19:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what is said above - I do not see a need for a 'physiology' section at present. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is much redundancy in this article that should be combined according to MEDMOS. I would like to facilitate that process and collaborate to improve the article.
  • Yeast infection is mentioned multiple times.
  • Epithelium is mentioned multiple times and in different sections.
  • Lymphatics is described and mentioned in two different sections.
  • Prolapse is described in two different sections.
  • Estrogen is described in multiple sections.
  • Labia is mentioned at least nine times and in multiple sections. Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 19:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Barbara (WVS), Doc James is not proposing content. He is citing the content you added and is criticizing where you placed it. He is stating that the Physiology section you created is not needed. He is agreeing with me.
As for your idea of redundancy, it is very off. For example, epithelium is going to be mentioned multiple times and in different sections since it pertains to those different sections. What you are stating is like suggesting that there should be one "Epithelium" section with all of the epithelium material in it. That is not how things work. Not according to WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy or any general formatting guideline. To be even clearer: Mentioning epithelium is obviously going to be relevant to both the Microanatomy section and the Secretions section. Mentioning the term epithelium in those sections is no more redundant than mentioning the term vagina in those sections. Redundancy is creating a section with material that is already covered elsewhere in the article, or adding material that is already covered elsewhere in the article, which are things you have done. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

I appreciate the attention of other editors in providing feedback regarding the editing issues of this article-I feel that it is a more collaborative effort now. Iztwoz and Trappist the monk made much needed improvements. I don't believe the editing conflicts exist between just two editors any longer. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 19:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara (WVS), what are you asserting is resolved? There are no editing conflicts between me and Iztwoz, or me and Trappist the monk. I don't see where they have agreed with your edits and conflicted with me. Trappist the monk is here because I asked him to be here for reference fixing. And Iztwoz is here because I pinged him above, he has an interest in anatomy articles and likely because I work well with him. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying...

CFCF mentioned that there are not enough MEDRS sources related to anatomy and that review articles are difficult to find. This is not true for female pelvic anatomy and Tom (LT) notes that female anatomy is the exception by saying "[For]the human brain or aspects of female sexual anatomy, it's not always going to be the case that anatomy sources from 70 years ago are good to use."

Therefore, if ya got em, use em. I have no intention of removing older references. I intend to insert the content from review articles and more recent medical textbooks and cite them. There is no consensus on the belief that the older refs in this article are good enough. MEDRS wants editors to use the highest quality references if they are available, i.e., review articles and meta-analyses. In addition:

I will be inserting content related to the assessment of vaginal structure with MRI. It would be a waste of time to tell you F22rb, exactly I will insert because I don't even have it drafted up yet. I'm still reading the review articles that describe the anatomical study of the vagina by MRI.
Cut out the personal remarks about me. I'm not going to cite all the policies regarding this. I am asking nicely and I am willing to have this addressed by posting a description of this behavior to the ANI. Play nice. Keep your remarks directed toward improving the article. Stop telling me to listen (What does that mean, anyway? What, I don't do exactly what you want me to?)
Quite the contrary, I posted a photo and comment about being reverted not being a big deal. And if I was annoyed by being reverted, I am not now.
I never said that the other topics need to be covered in depth.
We don't have a lot of cystocele stuff, that's okay.
There is content about the same thing in many article sections. It is described above. That is my definition of jumbled. You don't have to agree, I'm cool.
I'm all for using the cervix article as a template for this one.
Listen. Relax. Go watch some football.
Still, Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 20:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Barbara (WVS), if we go to WP:ANI, I do believe that it will be you who will be reprimanded there. And your past disturbing behavior regarding me will no doubt be taken into account. I have no issue with going ahead and going there since, yes, you still are not listening and seem to be intent on doing whatever you want despite the concern of others and precedent. I have not engaged in WP:Personal attacks at this talk page involving you. I have criticized your edits and behavior. And criticism is obviously something you cannot take.
If you keep wrongly interpreting WP:MEDRS, this will need to be something that will be addressed at the WP:MEDRS talk page, even though editors interpreting it wrongly is something that has been addressed times before at that talk page. I just told you above that "by 'up-to-date,' WP:MEDDATE does not mean that the sources need to be newer; it doesn't mean that I need trade out an older source for a newer source every couple or few years. It means that the content should be up-to-date when it comes to the text we are including. This is why it states, "In many topics, a review that was conducted more than five or so years ago will have been superseded by more up-to-date ones, and editors should try to find those newer sources, to determine whether the expert opinion has changed since the older sources were written." The content should be current knowledge. The sources I've included are very much WP:MEDRS-compliant. I do not need to trade out a 2013 source for a 2017 source simply for appearances' sake. Still, because some editors interpret WP:MEDRS wrongly in that way, which has been challenged time and time again, I sometimes trade out older sources for newer sources when it's not necessary. That is only for show."
Despite stating that, you are still insisting that we need "the highest quality references if they are available, i.e., review articles and meta-analyses" for anatomy material that is largely the same as it was many years ago and/or for non-controversial material. No, quality textbooks work just fine for this topic and WP:MEDRS notes quality textbooks as being fine. Pinging TenOfAllTrades since he has addressed this "within five years" misinterpretation times before. Bluerasberry might also be willing to weigh in since the current WP:MEDDATE wording about five years is partly because of him. And, to think, he was trying to soften the text. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And, for the record, it was me who stated, "[For] the human brain or aspects of female sexual anatomy, it's not always going to be the case that anatomy sources from 70 years ago are good to use." You misquoting that is another example of you often misreading things, which remains one my concerns when you are editing anatomy and medical articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As for "content about the same thing" in the article's sections, I addressed your odd definition of jumbled in the section immediately above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Playing nice, discussing, etc.

Taking a page out of your book by creating a separate section to address a few things: Barbara (WVS), regarding my interactions with you and your statement that I should play nice, I have been trying to place nice. But, again, you do not make it easy. Can you not understand how unnecessary the #Keratinized section was? I had just replied to you in the section above that, making it clear that the wording was correct. You went on to create a different section just to readdress it and debate it. That was a waste of time, unless one can state you now see that it was not a matter of conflicting sources but rather that you were simply wrong. Stuff like this leaves a fiery back and forth between us, and others do not want to weigh in. You sometimes eventually state that you understand (though never acknowledging that you are wrong) and that you will keep what I've stated in mind, but it seems that you never do. We find our ourselves right back in the same type of exchange. It's recycle and repeat. I've asked you to first discuss significant changes so that we will not have these problems, or so that they will at least not happen so often. It is not me trying to stifle your choice to be WP:Bold. It is me wanting to get the text right, it is me knowing that we often disagree and wanting to avoid unnecessary conflict, and me trying to collaborate. For example, right now, you are arguing that you will be "inserting content related to the assessment of vaginal structure with MRI." There is no intent to discuss first that is evident in that statement.

And considering that MRI studies sometimes conflict, or depart from what other studies state, and we should not give WP:Undue weight to aspects not well-supported in the literature, it is something that should first be discussed before it is added. This 2012 "Spine Surgery 2-Vol Set E-Book: Techniques, Complication Avoidance, and Management (Expert Consult - Online)" source, from Elsevier Health Sciences, page 1514, demonstrates how MRI studies can be just one aspect of the literature and should not automatically get more weight. It states, "The reasons for the variance in study outcomes likely include dissimilar end points (e.g., listhesis, loss of disc height, stenosis, signal change), different radiographic measures (e.g., radiography, CT, MRI), and different reporting methods across studies." I know that the source is not about the vagina; I'm obviously listing it as an example of MRI studies not being the be-all and end-all. I've learned this from years of studying medical topics. If what you stated in the #Discussion continued section is about the research on vaginal anatomy when you state that "the anatomy of the pelvic organs HAS changed. This is according to the more recent literature and this mostly due to the imaging studies with MRI. MRI has shown that some structures that were previously described (even by Gray) don't actually exist and that other structures that haven't been previously described now have names," you should demonstrate that here on the talk page for review. If you are misinterpreting something again, this is where fresh eyes would be a huge benefit. We are clearly not the only ones watching the article. You can wait for others to weigh in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vagina&oldid=818169615"