From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Anon User: added this to the article, not my field bu it may be able to inegrate into the article;

The following is printed with the permission of those listed and also the very kind permission of Trinity College of Dublin, The Unversity of Limerick, Ireland, Notre Dame University, Paris, France.


Nil me agree le GFDL,

The above is irrelevant. (talk) 14:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Adult stem cell research[edit]

The artice should perhaps mention the potential impact of stem cell research on the modern practice of phalloplasty. It is possible to imagine that new techniques in regenerative organ growth could have useful applications for those who seek penis enlargement. [1] ADM (talk) 12:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


also referred to in the literature as addadictomy

I am skeptical of this, what literature? I am thinking this should be fact-tagged. I could understand this being a popular slang, but has it actually been adopted into medical literature? (talk) 08:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This term should not be used. It isn't a medical term, and it isn't even a widely used slang term.

There is also an error in describing phalloplasty as another term for penis enlargement. The extension of an existing organ is entirely different to creating a fake penis.

Merger proposal[edit]

The "No Touch" article would fit well in the "Techniques Explained" section, after being condensed. Prof. Mc (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Are you seeking support or someone's time to do this? Millionmice (talk) 03:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Strongly opposed. Two simple reasons. First, the "receiving article" (this one) is of markedly poorer quality (skim referencing, for instance). I have placed critical tags on the incoming article, but it far exceeds this one in fundamentals of medical and scientific writing. Placing good quality content into a bad article context obscures the quality of the entering text, and artificially and misleadingly gives a better impression of the quality of the merged article. Even if I believed these were the two articles best to be merged, I would urge improvement of the receiving article—so its general content quality was on par with the entering article. Second, I believe this is an apples and oranges merger of subjects, unless the receiving article is so poorly written as to mask a compliemntarity I do not see. The surgical aim of the article being brought here is to reintroduce functionality; if it belongs merged anywhere, it is with another class of procedures, and not phalloplasty with its stated aims. The aims and content (and therefore audiences) of these two surgical procedures appear to be distinct. The stated desire of some editors to see this incoming article subsumed into a larger article and topic is reasonable, even laudable. This simply does not appear to be the correct place to insert it, based solely on the matter of comparable, related medical content. Before doing this, please entertain broad expert opinion to see if urologists and genitourinary surgeons (i) see this procedure labeled as a phalloplasty procedure in the literatures that they consult, and (ii) would they themselves wish to see it appear in this context. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I have just read the first 20 or so results of a search for "penile prosthesis Phalloplasty ncbi". Phalloplasty appears to be an umbrella term which includes penile prosthesis implantation, which is itself an umbrella term which includes "No-touch surgical technique for penile prosthesis implantation". I do not agree the prosthesis article to be merged with phalloplasty is of good quality, as it includes specifics that are not universally accepted, is predominantly written by one person, and reads like an advertisement. I agree this page needs improvement. Millionmice (talk) 21:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Support merge. The No-touch surgical technique for penile prosthesis implantation is long, but has excessive and unnecessary detail, being mostly a 'how to' on the surgery (WP:NOTHOWTO); the topic is a subset of the "Techniques explained" section, and so, once edited to a reasonable size, would fit well there. I also note that the Phalloplasty page itself has greatly improved since the objections voiced on 1st June 2014, so I don't believe that that line of argument still holds. Klbrain (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Klbrain, you can ask WP:Med to weigh in on the idea merging the articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Also keep in mind that WP:NOTHOWTO states, "Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out a relevant section of WP:NOTHOWTO; I accept that the text is not in the imperative mood. It is interesting to note that the general article Asepsis#Methods is much shorter than No-touch surgical technique for penile prosthesis implantation. On a more positive note, much of the content in No-touch surgical technique for penile prosthesis implantation is relevant to Phalloplasty in general, and so the target will benefit from this additional content. This page is also sufficiently short that it can accommodate the additional material.Klbrain (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Given that this has been going on for 3 years, and that there have been no obections over the last 2.5months, I'll complete this oldest merge proposal on the English Wikipedia. Klbrain (talk) 10:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Phalloplasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect information[edit]

These are not grafts, they are flaps. Grafts do not have their own blood supplies, grafts would only be used to cover the donor site or possibly make urethras. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Habitsofwaste (talkcontribs) 01:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)