From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Anatomy (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article has not yet been associated with a particular anatomical discipline.
WikiProject Sexuality (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Why does "paracolpium" redirect here?[edit]

Word not used in article. (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


Some mention should be made of the introitus (or at least the term) at Vagina#Vaginal_opening_and_hymen, should there not? I wasn't sure how best to explain it, though. AbuseResearcher (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

AbuseResearcher (talk ยท contribs), since the the vaginal introitus is the vaginal opening, it's already covered there. So I take it that this is why you pointed to that section and suggested "or at least the term." I added the term there, but I don't see a need to link to the two-sentence Introitus article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I wonder how much potential there is for expansion of that introitus article. For example, if memory serves, the introitus is often what people's complaints center around with regard to vaginal laxity. AbuseResearcher (talk) 01:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
We should not have the Introitus article focus heavily on the vaginal introitus. If the vaginal introitus topic is to be expanded, it should be in the Vagina article. And with good WP:MEDRS-compliant sources unless the text is a non-medical, cultural matter. Because there is not a lot of information out there exclusively about the vaginal opening, there is no need for a Vaginal introitus article, which is why, in May 2013, I redirected the Vaginal orifice article to the Vagina article. Like I just stated at WP:Med of the Vaginal laxity article you created, "I'm not a fan of unnecessary WP:Content forking. I will almost always choose consolidation unless a WP:Spinout article is truly needed." And if the topic of vaginal laxity needs expansion, we clearly have articles for noted at WP:Med. Flyer22 (talk) 03:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Putting a lot more information about the vaginal introitus in the vagina article might lead to undue weight concerns. On the other hand, the introitus information out there mostly pertains to the vaginal introitus. If there's not much potential for expansion of the introitus article beyond a couple sentences, then it would be a good candidate for being converted into a redirect, or simply being a Wiktionary entry. AbuseResearcher (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
AbuseResearcher (talk ยท contribs), you are not new to editing Wikipedia (you've edited Wikipedia under different registered accounts and have returned under a new account); I basically noted this at WP:Med. So you should therefore know that adding more about the vaginal introitus to the Vaginal opening and hymen section of the Vagina article, a section that is supposed to focus on the vaginal opening and hymen, is not a violation of WP:Undue weight. You went ahead and expanded the Introitus article to be mostly about the vaginal introitus, despite what I stated above. You also added "The term usually refers, however, to the vaginal orifice," without any WP:Reliable source supporting that statement. And despite what I stated about WP:MEDRS, you continue to add poor sources. Do read what it states about WP:Primary sources and other sources. I will go ahead and revert your vaginal introitus material; if you want it restored, you should add better sources for it; look to book sources on Google Books. And if it is restored, it should be merged into the "Vaginal opening and hymen" section, but not with those poor sources. And the STI/STD material will belong in the Infections and disorders section of the Vagina article. Flyer22 (talk) 03:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
And, yes, I agree that the Introitus article should be a Wiktionary entry. Flyer22 (talk) 04:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: AbuseResearcher is a WP:Sockpuppet of a WP:Banned editor, and the AbuseResearcher account is now indefinitely blocked; see here. Flyer22 (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Simplifying the language[edit]

CFCF, per this discussion at WP:Med and your Wikipedia:Making medical articles understandable essay, I know that you've been aiming to simply language in medical articles. Actually, before that, I knew that you have been aiming to do that. But, as seen at Talk:Vagina/Archive 5#Genital vs. urogenital, my concern is us dumbing down the language too much. Like I mentioned in that discussion, this is not the Simple English Wikipedia; nor should it be. So regarding this and this edit you made to the lead, why were those edits needed (I mean, besides cutting a few instances of unnecessarily wordy language)? How was that content difficult for lay readers to understand? With that second edit, you stated, "We need to sacrifice precision for readability." I disagree because I don't see what was a WP:Technical violation, or non-readable, about that lead. Editors had worked on it to simply it (meaning before your latest edits). I also think that you simplified a few things too much. For example, "The vagina plays a significant role in human female sexuality and sexual pleasure." sentence and the "Because of the risk of STIs, health authorities and health care providers, recommend safe sex practices." sentence. Regarding that first sentence, you pipelinked "human female sexuality" as "female sexuality," but that line is specifically about humans; so it is sort of a WP:EGG link at the moment. Female sexuality redirects to the Human female sexuality article. If we want that line to refer to both humans and non-human animals, then I think it needs rewording, given the human female sexuality link and that scholars don't know as much about vaginal sexuality with regard to non-human animals as they do with regard to humans. And as for the other sentence, changing it to "Because of the risk of STIs safe sex practices are recommended." begs the question of "who recommends the practices?"... Yes, I have no doubt that some editor would tag that line with Template:Who...despite the fact that it's common sense that medical authorities and the general public recommend the practices, and despite the fact that it is sourced lower in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 05:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I made minor tweaks to your changes. Flyer22 (talk) 05:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Followup note here. Flyer22 (talk) 05:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

This article is (even after my edits) ranked as one of the least readable articles we have on the medical Wikipedia according to . As for Simple English WP its unequivocally a failure. There is no readership and barely anyone edits it. We need to make sure the ledes of our articles are navigable even for readers with low comprehension. That is why it is imperative that we make the ledes as simple as we can. Further details can go in the body of the article.
We also have to take into account who our readers are and what they are interested in. Granted most readers will be looking for information on human sexuality I think we can omit adding human to every other sentence.
As for the "who recommends" we generally skip this when it doesn't add anything to the discussion, especially in the lede. -- CFCF ๐ŸŒ (email) 05:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Our medical articles are always going to be somewhat difficult for readers to understand, since medical topics are usually outside of the understanding of the general public (though the general public might be familiar with some aspects). The same goes for a lot of Wikipedia science and math articles. Is there any Wikipedia medical article that is completely understandable to our non-medical readers...other than some of our WP:Stub or sort of WP:Stub articles? That stated, I do think you did okay with the lead of the Vagina article. Some of that content, as I mentioned above, was indeed unnecessarily wordy. Flyer22 (talk) 06:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
The difference is that our medical articles are read by the general public, while math articles are unlikely to reach the same audience. To give you an idea of what I find is a good example you can see this WebMD entry: I find that it employs a number of good practices: using short sentences, using the active tense, and avoiding subclauses. These are all good practices when writing for the general public. I find the CDC's to be a very useful guide. It isn't entirely suited for an encyclopaedia, but it's a start until we have our own materials. -- CFCF ๐ŸŒ (email) 08:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Since our math and science articles are also read by the general public, as has been reported in WP:Reliable sources, including with regard to teachers telling their students not to read (and/or copy from) Wikipedia, I think what you mean is that our medical articles are more likely to be sought out by the general public than our math or science articles will be. WP:Technical is not simply or primarily about our medical articles, after all. However we go about simplifying these articles, there is a such thing as oversimplification. And it's oversimplification that, as essentially noted above, I am worried about when it comes to simplifying a medical article and some other types of articles (whether the lead or the entire article). It might be worth it that an editor type up an essay about oversimplification with regard to writing -- about not dumbing things down too much and instead trusting our readers to understand certain things, especially if we are wording those things clearly and linking to further detail. My main points are: Math, science and medical articles are going to have technical language in them; they are supposed to. I'd rather use a technical word in a clear way than an imprecise word to try to get across the same point. If less technical wording conveys a matter accurately, I am fine with that as long as we don't lose the necessary details and/or try to remove all the technical language. Flyer22 (talk) 09:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

โ”Œโ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”˜ Since these recent edits, to my reading there are now a few actual errors in the lead here.

  1. Where the vagina previously was defined as a "tubular sex organ that is part of the female genital tract," we now say that it is a "sex organ and part of female genitalia." Unless we are falling into the colloquial error described in the last part of the lead right from the start, I don't think that the vagina is strictly part of the 'genitalia'. Genitalia are usually defined as external sex organs, and only the final opening of the vagina can be described as external, and that depends upon the position of the rest of the body.
  2. We say that males "usually have the urethral opening as the only opening to the urinary tract, females usually have two external openings." I don't think that we should describe the vagina as an opening to the urinary tract. We used to say that "females usually have two external orifices, the urethral orifice for the urological tract and the vaginal orifice for the genital tract": Two openings, two tracts.

I'm not sure why we have to banish the word orifice entirely from the lead. It seems that doing that has led to the simplification of some sentences beyond what is easily readable, in order to eliminate duplication of opening. "In amphibians, birds, reptiles and monotremes, the cloaca is the single external opening" does not scan as easily as "In amphibians, birds, reptiles and monotremes, an opening called the cloaca functions as a single external orifice". As a science teacher, I found that eliminating technical terms entirely from discussions did not help students to become familiar with their correct meaning and use. --Nigelj (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

You have a good point about the term genitalia, as made clear in the Sex organ article that it redirects to. As for the "females usually have two external openings" wording, CFCF did clarify after that "They are the urethral and the vaginal openings." But your point seems to be that we should clarify that the female urethral opening is for the urological tract, and that the vaginal opening is for the genital tract. Considering that people commonly think that girls/women urinate out of the vagina, which I addressed on this talk page before (in the aforementioned "Genital vs. urogenital" discussion) and added material on in the Vagina article, I get your point about clarity in this regard. As for the "amphibians" line, it states "In amphibians, birds, reptiles and monotremes, the cloaca is the single external opening for the gastrointestinal tract and the urinary and reproductive tracts." That's not too different than what it used to state, which is that "In amphibians, birds, reptiles and monotremes, an opening called the cloaca functions as a single external orifice for the gastrointestinal tract, urological tract, and reproductive tract." So I see no need to change that back to how it was before. And I think consistently using "opening" instead of "orifice" for the lead is fine. If we want to use both and make it clear that "opening" and "orifice" are the same thing in the case of this topic, we can have the first appearance of "orifice" in the lead state "orifice (opening)" or the first appearance of "opening" in the lead state "opening (orifice)." I thought about doing that because of what you stated above. I did make changes because of your other concerns, though. Flyer22 (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)