Talk:Labia majora

Anatomy: Gross Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy 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.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to gross anatomy.

Women's Health Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health 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.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

cutaneous folds

There needs to be an article for cutaneous folds. Gringo300 05:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be more differentiation between Labia minor and majora in words. They each say the same thing about cutaneous folds.Sp0 (talk) 10:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

two surfaces

It needs to be explained what is meant by each labium majus having two surfaces. I've long heard this, but I've never been able to figure out what is meant! Gringo300 04:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My impression from the article is that one surface is on the outside (visible in the article's infobox photo) and is where pubic hair grows, while the other surface is on the inside of the fold, next to the labia minora and clitoral hood. See image at right. 138.16.32.85 (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

labia majora, labiocrural folds, and buttocks

Do the labiocrural folds run between the labia majora and the buttocks? Gringo300 (talk) 04:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tone tag

I moved the following tone-tag to here, because I think the textbook format is acceptable, the article is now organized into sections, and a more informal article is of greater need in Simple:Wikipedia than here. Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{tone |date=January 2012 |reason=This sounds like something out of a medical textbook, which is not very helpful to the average reader. Items should be grouped into meaningful paragraphs instead of stated in a list. Also, some of the language is a bit stiff or overly formal.}}

Lead picture

Regarding this, the American Medical Academy is a Florida-based medical training school. Hardly an authoritative source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are an accredited medical institution and have far more knowledge in this field than you. Are you saying your more of an authoritative source then them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nipplewoman (talk • contribs) 22:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nipplewoman: Please see WP:MEDRS for what we consider a medically reliable source. And you have not provided any link or reference to where they're making this claim. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Depilation

Illustrative examples with normal hair would be more informative. Jack Waugh (talk) 00:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The lead, and adding content

GregZak, I reverted you here (followup edit here) because the lead, per WP:Lead, is meant to summarize the article, not be bigger than article, and because Wikipedia is not a WP:Reliable source. You need to source your content with reliable anatomy sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Difference in picture

Off-topic

– this topic argues for changes to another article, specifically Scrotum, hence it should not be on this talk page

The male homologous organ is the Scrotum: And yet, both articles have totally opposite styles of pictures. A look at the talk page for Scrotum shows an intense debate over the nature of the lead image, with them settling on a diagram that rather frankly is confusing (as the Scrotum is primarily skin, something not shown!). That there is NO debate over the real pictures of female genetalia is suspicious!

I think it is clear that the differences between these two articles in their choice of picture and abundance/lack of complaint is due to some form of sexist public bias that should be avoided.

Unity between the two pages should be established. I personally think the Scrotum page should have a live picture as it is more informative. There is a good one listed in the last talk page. 90.242.136.228 (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page Scrotum seems to have had a photo on and off. Other than that, this is not really the page to argue "the Scrotum page should have a live picture". I am going to nominate this topic as an off topic thread. Wallby (talk) 11:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]