From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Page views per day[edit]

This page received 3,722,163 views in 2016, with 65.7% from mobile devices per User:West.andrew.g/2016 Popular pages.--agr (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose that Vaginal mucus be merged into Vagina. I think that the content of that article can easily be explained here. benrusholme (talk) 16:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Support for this move --Iztwoz (talk) 01:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Seconded.--TEHodson 06:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge as proposed. benrusholme (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

  • There is a consensus to proceed with the merger
  • Nobody has objected and more than 30 days have passed

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

In preparation for GA status[edit]

Really, this article could make GA status in its current state, but there is more that I want to do to it before then. Any suggestions for further improving the article? Anything that you feel is missing from the article? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the article needs editing. Here are some suggestions:
  • “More is known about the vagina in humans than in other animals.” Dubious and the sort of generality that is almost impossible to support. It adds nothing to the article; I would get rid of it. Maybe we should have separate articles for vagina and human vagina as we have for penis.
  • The last sentence of the last paragraph of the intro has a POV tone. Here is the sentence from February 28, 2013 version of the article[1] :

Colloquially, the word vagina is often used to refer to the vulva or to the female genitals in general.[1] However, by its dictionary and anatomical definitions, vagina refers exclusively to the specific internal structure.

I think it makes the same point without scolding. Here is another reference to the common use
  • The first sentence in the intro's last paragraph is also problematical. The verb “persisted” is strange to use with “perceptions.” I suspect the word was originally “misperceptions” and was changed to sound more neutral. As it stands the sentence is propagating the ideas that the vagina as “inferior to the penis, or as visually unappealing or otherwise vulgar” without challenge. We can mention the the vagina has powerful symbolic importance in human culture without reciting all the bad ideas about it in the intro.
  • Also note that “visually unappealing” is presumably referring to the vulva, as is most of the the lengthly “Society and culture” section, which is much longer than the corresponding section in vulva. Perhaps that section should become a separate article incorporating material from both vagina and vulva.
  • The body of the article confronts the reader with a wall of technical jargon that I think would discourage most readers, as I have mentioned in earlier discussions. It could be improved by a simple reordering. I would put the “Vaginal opening and hymen” and “Variations and size” (perhaps renamed) in front of the more technical “Development” and “Layers, regions and histology” sections.
  • A close read will produce many instances where less technical language can be used. The vulva vs vagina controversy, as I understand it, seeks to empower women with accurate information about their bodies. Writing this article in terminology designed for medical specialists works in the other direction. I would want to see major improvements in a good article review.--agr (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I find this sentence "Along with pleasure and bonding, sexual behavior among women (which may include heterosexual or lesbian sexual activity) can also come with the risk of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), in which case safe sex practices are recommended..." jarring in its placement. It reads like the mandatory health warning on a package of birth control pills. Joyous! | Talk 23:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


agr, I obviously agree that article needs more editing. As for your suggestions:

The sentence "More is known about the vagina in humans than in other animals." is not dubious. There is far more information on the human vagina than there is on the vagina in other animals. In some of these animals, the organ is not even called a vagina...but is simply compared to one. A simple Google search reveals this. And, as seen at Talk:Vagina/Archive 5#Human-centric, it is for this very reason that we don't have a separate article for the vagina in other animals. All we would have for such an article is pretty much what you see in the "Other animals" section of the article, which would make splitting off the material unnecessary. In cases such as these, we follow WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy and simply have an "Other animals" section. The sentence you take issue with makes it clear to readers early on why the article is mostly about humans, but I'm not tied to the sentence; I could be fine with removing it.

For information about misuse of the term vagina, the lead currently states "In common speech, the word vagina is often incorrectly used to refer to the vulva, which can impact knowledge of the female genitalia." I do not find the sentence scolding or a POV issue. It's certainly not against the WP:NPOV policy. It is a sentence supported by the "Etymology and definition" section. The term vagina is misused, and, according to a number of reliable sources, it does impact knowledge of the female genitalia. This should be in the lead because, per the lead guideline, it summarizes the important "Etymology and definition" section. I am open to you suggesting a reword that makes it clear that incorrect usage of the term vagina impacts knowledge of the female genitalia.

For lead guideline reasons again, I don't understand your objection to the first sentence in the intro's last paragraph; it is briefly summarizing the "Society and culture" section, as it should. I am open to you suggesting a reword that summarizes the negativity, but those negative views should be in the lead.

You stated that "visually unappealing" is presumably referring to the vulva. Presumably, yes, and specifically to the vaginal lips, which is the main part that women change when it comes to cosmetic surgery on their genitalia. But, for some of the sources, we can't know if they mean the vulva instead of the vagina. There are people (including heterosexual men) who find the vaginal opening unappealing. The "Perceptions, symbolism and vulgarity" section is referring to the vagina and vulva, because, as noted earlier on in the article, the term vagina is often used to refer to the vulva. But most of the text in that section is about the vagina. Most of the sources state "vagina." David Buss and Hilda Hutcherson, for example, explicitly use the word vagina, and I think it's clear that they mean the vagina except for when either talks about the female genitals overall. I don't find the "Society and culture" culture section overly long. There are only three subsections in the "Society and culture" culture section so far, and each section is a few paragraphs long (with the first two being five paragraphs long and the last one being three paragraphs long), and, from what I see, most of that should be retained. It shouldn't be split into a separate article, no more than the "Society and culture" section of the Clitoris article should. Doing so would be unnecessarily causing our readers to go to a different article for the material. We should only split content when necessary. There is a lot to state about society as it relates to the female genitals and these articles should be comprehensive, but they should also summarize instead of going into too much detail. We shouldn't create separate articles until we know that they are warranted. I do think that the "vagina has additionally been termed many vulgar names" paragraph of the "Perceptions, symbolism and vulgarity" section should be downsized, however.

As for technical jargon, we simplify where we should, such as in the lead, but with most of the anatomical terminology, we are using the anatomical terms where we should. There are no simpler terms to use in the place of these terms. I've noted before that we should not be unnecessarily dumbing down the text and/or using slang words in place of technical terms. You stated, "Writing this article in terminology designed for medical specialists works in the other direction.," but the article explains the technical terminology where it reasonably can. In the "Development" section, for example, we explain what urogenital folds are via parenthetical use. Would you have us not use the term urogenital folds? What simpler term can replace it? What simple terms can replace most the terminology in the "Layers, regions and histology" section? The "Vaginal opening" section has technical terminology as well, but it's not titled "Vagina orifice" or "Vaginal introitus." It uses the more common name "opening" and the section regulates the other two terms to secondary placement. As for the order, I designed it with WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy in mind but while doing what I think is the best order for the information. Just like with the Clitoris article, I prefer that the development material comes first. The "Layers, regions and histology" section logically follows the development material (certainly better than it follows the "Vaginal opening and hymen" and "Variations and size" sections). Furthermore, any one interested in those latter sections will skip right to them; they won't let the technical language of the "Layers, regions and histology" stop them. You might be thinking that WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy has "Variations" first under "Structure," but the structure content that MEDMOS#Anatomy speaks of is the development and histology material in this article. That stated, even though a "Variations" section is not always necessary and doesn't have to come before the development and histology material, I'd be willing to go with your suggestions for the order of the sections. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


Joyous!, risk information should be in the lead because we have a section in the article about risks (the "Infections and disorders" section). How do you propose that sentence is reworded? Keep in mind that the heterosexual and lesbian part is mentioned as part of a compromise: Talk:Vagina/Archive 8#Proposed mention of role of vagina in lesbian and women who have sex with women sex. I didn't see how else the heterosexual and lesbian part fit in the lead. I'd still rather that neither sexual orientation aspect is mentioned in the lead, but, as the aforementioned discussion shows, an editor felt that the lead is too heteronormative without the lesbian mention. You know, because it notes the biological roles of the vagina and penis in relation to each other. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

First regarding other animals, no doubt there are animals whose reproduction systems have not been studied well, though even that assertion would require a carful literature search. But there are certainly animals that have been studied intensively. Obstetrics is a major part of large animal veterinary practice. All new drugs and most ne medical procedures are first tested in animal models and knowledge of those animals' reproductive systems is often vital in such testing. I wouldn't be surprised if more is known about mice genital ontology than human. It would take an expert with broad knowledge of these field to reliably opine on this topic. And there is no need for such a statement in this article. All we need say is that the human vagina is the primary focus of this article.
Telling people that their use of the term vagina as it is used by the vast majority of the population is both incorrect and harmful is scolding in my book. I would suggest

Colloquially, the word vagina is often used to refer to the vulva or to the female genitals in general.[1] However, by its dictionary and anatomical definitions, vagina refers exclusively to the specific internal structure, understanding the distinction can aid in health care communication.

I would also point out that "vaginal lips" are considered part of the vulva, not the vagina according to the strict interpretation of the terms that we are trying to follow. That distinction becomes difficult to sustain when talking about concerns about body appearance and society and culture. The simplest approach is to make clear what we are talking about in those sections.
As for the order of topics, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Anatomy calls for an order that is pretty much what I suggested above. It would have the advantage of providing basic information, which can be explained in plain English, before the incredibly jargon laden sections "Development" and "Layers, regions and histology." I see no reason not to follow our guideline on this. --agr (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
agr, I do not like to call myself an expert on anything on Wikipedia because I keep mention of my professions off Wikipedia and I think editing well (including following the literature with due weight) is usually more important than one being an expert on what they are editing, but I will go ahead and note here in this discussion that I am significantly knowledgeable on female anatomy. If I weren't, I would not have been as invested as I've been with the Clitoris article or with the Vagina article. You mentioned "that assertion would require a car[e]ful literature search." I would not have made the assertion if I were not certain of the literature on this matter. You stated, "It would take an expert with broad knowledge of these field to reliably opine on this topic." Not really. All it would take is researching the topic for a few hours (or significantly less than that, really) to see that the vagina has been studied in humans far more than it has been studied in other animals, and that, as I stated, "In some of these animals, the organ is not even called a vagina...but is simply compared to one." You stated, "And there is no need for such a statement in this article. All we need say is that the human vagina is the primary focus of this article." WP:Self references are usually avoided; I see no need for one in this case.
We disagree on the scolding and harmful notion. The general public misuses medical terms all the time, and frequent misuse of the terms does not make the misuses correct. In fact, in the case of pedophilia (another topic I have significant knowledge on), misuse of the term is harmful (and the Pedophilia article notes that without outright stating "harmful"). In the case of the vagina, misusing the term vagina can also be harmful, and this article notes that. So should the lead. I will, however, consider your second proposal for the wording. I think you meant to include "and" so that the text reads as "and understanding the distinction can aid in health care communication." It's not just a matter of health care communication, though. So I do still think it's important to note that misusing the term vagina can impact knowledge of the female genitalia. I don't think of it as empowering or a good thing when girls and women use the term vagina to mean "vulva" and don't know the correct terms for any of their genitalia, and neither do a number of scholarly sources. There are scholars trying to change the discourse of female genitalia for reasons this article mentions. It is not a good thing when men or women, because of automatically associating the penis with the vagina (when the penis is actually a different variation of the clitoris), think that girls/women urinate out of the vagina.
Regarding your vaginal lips point.... I used the term "vaginal lips" above, but I didn't state that the vaginal lips are a part of the vagina (even though there are some reliable sources that consider them an aspect of the vagina due to their location). We don't have to state "vaginal lips" in the article. It is simply another term for labia minora, which is the term we should use. This article is about the vagina, but there are going to be aspects of it that are about the vulva as well, for reasons already made clear above. Furthermore, some aspects of female genital mutilation include the vulva and vagina. You stated, "The simplest approach is to make clear what we are talking about in those sections." We already do that; we follow what the sources state. If it's not clear that we mean the vulva, we should be clear about it. The Vagina Monologues is not simply about the vagina, and we make that clear in section it is mentioned in.
As for WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy, I stated above that I'd be willing to go with your suggestion for the order of the sections. In fact, I will go with your suggestion. But I do not agree with your interpretation of the guideline. I helped write that guideline, and it was not created to provide basic information first and to regulate so-called "incredibly jargon laden sections" later. If we look at WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy, we can see that it begins with the Structure listing and states, "including a brief description of location and size, course, insertions and attachments. Possible subsections for blood supply, lymphatic drainage and innervation if these are complex enough. There is no need to duplicate information provided in the infobox. If covered on the same page, subsections may be devoted to individual substructures." So it is stating that the Structure section may include any of that, and in subsections if needed. Most of that includes "technical jargon." Look at any of our other anatomical articles, including the Human brain article. In what way is the average reader really going to understand most of what is in the Human brain article, regardless of section order? Having a "Variations" section is often optional, which is why the listing states "if appropriate." And do see WP:MEDORDER, which I pointed you to above; it states, "The following lists of suggested sections are intended to help structure a new article or when an existing article requires a substantial rewrite. Changing an established article simply to fit these guidelines might not be welcomed by other editors. The given order of sections is also encouraged but may be varied, particularly if that helps your article progressively develop concepts and avoid repetition." That is the aspect that I followed. WP:MEDORDER also states, "Do not discourage potential readers by placing a highly technical section near the start of your article." In this case, you and I disagree on the "highly technical section" aspect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
The statement “the vagina has been studied in humans far more than it has been studied in other animals,” is not the same as “More is known about the vagina in humans than in other animals.” I’d find the former more acceptable. But neither provides a reason why the article is mostly about humans. Regardless of relative quantity, there is more than enough of information on animal vaginas and related organs to fill a Wikipedia article. We don’t have to excuse the absence of such an article, merely say this article is primarily about humans. And there is nothing in WP:SELF that precludes or even discourages such a statement.
Thank you for catching that I left out the “and”. I would be happy with something like “and understanding the distinction can improve knowledge of the female genitalia and aid in health care communication.” Does that work for you?
If you are willing to go with my suggestion for the order of the sections, we don’t have to agree as to the justification. I’d be happy to make a first pass or leave it to you if you have time now.—agr (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I could go with "the vagina has been studied in humans far more than it has been studied in other animals," if we change "far" to "significantly." As for creating an article on vaginas in other animals, I'm still against it per my arguments above. As for stating "This article is primarily about humans.", I think that is only acceptable as a WP:Hatnote. I do not think it is proper as a placement in the lead. I think it is a self-reference we are supposed to avoid unless it's a hatnote. That stated, I'll think more on whether or not it's best to mention in the lead that little is known about the vagina in other animals. After all, in the lead of the Clitoris article, I currently don't have it mentioned that little is known about the clitoris in other animals. I reserve this information for the lower part of the article instead, stating, "Although the clitoris exists in all mammal species, few detailed studies of the anatomy of the clitoris in non-humans exist." And that's sourced.
Yes, "and understanding the distinction can improve knowledge of the female genitalia and aid in health care communication" works for me.
I went ahead and changed the order of sections per your above argument. I was going to wait to do it since I like improving an article in one big go (and small followup edits if needed) when I'm tying up loose ends. But I decided to go ahead and do it now to show that I'm serious about going with the suggestion and since it seems you wanted it done sooner than later. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Great. This is progress. I think we could do without far or significantly, since there's no need to amplify "more." But I can live with significantly. This article is accessed 10,000 times a day, hence my sense of urgency. What about my comments on the first sentence of the intro's last paragraph?--agr (talk) 19:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I really don't see much of a difference between "the vagina has been studied in humans far more than it has been studied in other animals" and "More is known about the vagina in humans than in other animals." I view them as essentially the same thing because the vagina being studied in humans far more than it has been studied in other animals is why more is known about the vagina in humans than in other animals. But, anyway, I stated that I could go with your wording. As for the first sentence of the lead's last paragraph, I stated that it works for me. Leave the reference out of the lead, though; it's not needed. There's no need to have that part of the lead adorned with a reference when the other parts are not. I'm going with one of the WP:CITELEAD approaches by not having references in the lead of this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)



Section break[edit]

I moved a paragraph that simply describes the vagina in the development section to be the introductory paragraph of the Structure section. I would like to replace the cultural sentence in the last paragraph of the intro with "The vagina and vulva have evoked strong reactions in society and culture throughout history, including negative perceptions, cultural taboos and their use as symbols of female sexuality, spirituality, and regeneration of life." I think that more rarely summarized the society and culture section. We don't need to recite every negative myth in the intro. They can be discussed in the body of the article where they can be balanced with better information.--agr (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding this, this and this edit you made, I usually don't like this type of introductory material when the section has subsections that indicate what each section is about. And the reason that I usually do not like that type of introductory design is because it's common for our readers to accidentally overlook the material. Unless the section consists of one subheading, our readers commonly think that the first subheading contains the first paragraph. For what I mean, see this, this and this discussion from the Changeling (film) talk page. This issue is often solved by adding a "General" subheading or similar, which is why I reverted you on this edit. But adding too many "General" subheadings can look a bit silly. Another reason that I usually don't like the type of introductory style you created for two sections is because it creates a "not linked" or WP:Overlinking issue. People who overlook the introductory paragraph will think that the term is not linked and might link it again. I also typically don't like the redundancy. I am usually only for introductory paragraphs when needed. I don't mind keeping the first introductory paragraph you added since I think that bit of material fits better where you moved it, but I think that the second one is unnecessary.
While I don't see a need to be vague about the negative views (and they are generally views, not myths), I agree with adding your proposed sentence. I don't see a need to add "society and culture," though. "Society," or rather "societies," by itself will do. It's also best to add in "language." I'll go ahead and add the sentence now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
I prefer major sections have an introductory paragraph, but I see that other related articles follow the structure you prefer and we should follow that precedent. So I added an "Overview" subhead in the Structure section. I don't think the one sentence summary I put under Function needs a subhead as it merely introduce the following sections. But if you really want one, feel free to add something. I also think a short subsection on the role of the vagina in fertilization and birth control might be appropriate.--agr (talk) 18:11, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm okay with this subheading you added, but I still think that the summary paragraph you added to the "Function" section should be removed. It's not needed, and, again, I don't like summary paragraphs in sections unless they are needed; this is partly why I'm opposed to adding "a short subsection on the role of the vagina in fertilization and birth control." We have a "Sexual activity" section for the sexual activity material, and I like the order of that section (meaning talk of sexual activity first, then what happens during the vagina during sexual activity, and then talk of the disputed G-spot last). And when it comes to birth control, that should be discussed in the "Clinical significance" section; it should probably have its own section, but only if the material is significant in size. Like you, I also don't like creating a subheading for a little bit of material; this is why I commonly cite MOS:Paragraphs. Even the "Overview" heading is, in my opinion, too little material to warrant a subheading, but since it contains some non-redundant material that readers might accidentally overlook, I support it in this case. I generally dislike the "Overview" title since the lead is supposed to be the overview, but, yeah, it works in this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I do think that the "Sexual activity" section should contain more information about reproduction, and that, after this expansion, it should probably be titled "Sexual activity and reproduction." This isn't the Sexual intercourse article, though, so we shouldn't get carried away with the sexual reproduction material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
My thought was that discussion of fertilization and birth control could be combined, but I agree that Clinical significance might be a better place. Disease transmission prevention might also be discussed, since we mention safe sex in the intro. That should make the text large enough to warrant a subsection head, maybe Birth control and disease prevention.--agr (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Disease transmission prevention and safe sex are mentioned in the "Infections and disorders" section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Mentioned is the right word. I think a bit more of an explanation would be appropriate. Question: in the Structure section, what is the statement that the vagina "reaches across the perineum superiorly and posteriorly toward the cervix" trying to say? I think it should be possible to express this without so much jargon. Also in the intro there is a commented out statement about the cervix: "Which wall it bulges into is slightly variable." Should that be worked into the structure section? --agr (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
To address your latest edits first, what issue did you have with the third paragraph of the lead? By that, I mean the issue that led you to change it to this? I somewhat reverted you here because (in addition to the minor tweaks I made with that revert) I think it's best to warm up to the vaginal moisture point instead of jumping right into it after talking about how the vagina varies and the topic of the cloaca. Also, I used the wording "sexual intercourse or other sexual activity" instead of "sexual activity" because, if we leave out sex toys and other ways to penetrate the vagina, vaginal lubrication during sexual arousal is specifically about aiding penile penetration. That I've stated this would sound heteronormative to some, but I am speaking from a purely anatomical standpoint when I state that "vaginal lubrication during sexual arousal is specifically about aiding penile penetration." I think it's best to make it clear that vaginal lubrication isn't simply about any type of sexual activity, although vaginal lubrication will usually happen when a woman is sexually aroused regardless of whether or not penile penetration will be taking place. Stating "sexual intercourse" gets the point across since people usually associate sexual intercourse with penile-vaginal penetration. So I am thinking of re-adding "sexual intercourse" at the beginning." Use of "or other sexual activity" is to cover the fact that, if sexually aroused, vaginal lubrication will be present in the case of other sexual activity too.
I'm not seeing what else you want us to state about STIs and safe sex. The needed information is in the linked articles. When it comes to the vagina, it's not like many women seek out the female condom. Safe sex can also relate to birth control, and I've agreed that we should mention a bit of birth control material. I'm confused by your "reaches across the perineum superiorly and posteriorly toward the cervix" question because I see no other way to word that. It's not jargon; they are anatomical terms, and they should be used and linked to. And when it comes to this edit you made, I use semi-colons in such cases so that editors or readers know that the sentences are connected and are both sourced. Otherwise, one of the sentences might get tagged as unsourced. I am wary of citation overkill. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
As for the hidden note, it's a forgotten hidden note. I'll remove it now. If anyone comes up with sources for "slightly variable"...then we can address adding that information somewhere. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


There is a difference between saying "A causes B and B allows C" and saying "To allow C, A causes B." The former states facts, while the later draws a conclusion, implying C is the purpose (and only purpose) of A. Suggesting a purpose in biology is often a shortcut for "confers an evolutionary advantage" but is usually considered something to avoid in biological writing. In this case "smoother penetration" isn't an obvious evolutionary advantage per se. It may be advantageous by reducing trauma to the woman or it may serve as a signal to the male, thereby giving the woman more control over mating. The reduction in lubrication that takes place after menopause might support the signaling theory. If you think of it in co-evolution terms, both the male and female genitalia are capable of secreting lubrication, but at least in humans it is primarily a female function, hence maybe more likely to have benefited females, vs males over time. We don't have to discuss these issues (though the menopause reduction should be mentioned, I think), but suggesting the purpose of the moisture is smoother penetration, is oversimplified and unnecessary. Some might considered it too male centric. My wording was intended to avoid these problems.

As for STI's, I'd like to see a short mention that barrier methods including male and female condoms help prevent disease transmission by keeping keeping bodily fluids from being transferred into the vagina. I would replace "reaches across the perineum superiorly and posteriorly toward the cervix" with "goes from the vulva back to the cervix." I see no need to say it is above the perineum since that is the bottom of the torso. As for the semicolon, we should be using punctuation to benefit the reader, not other editors. If an over-zealous editor ever demands a reference for the first sentence, we can explain the reference covers both. If that does not satisfy them, we can add in inline comment. If a subject is so contentious that an editor won't give up demanding a reference for both sentences, joining them with a semicolon won't mollify them. I do agree with you on removing hidden note.

In general, I am trying to make this article more readable to a non-specialist audience, per your worthy suggestion of seeking a good article rating. This article is not only part of the Anatomy project, it is also part of the Women's Health and Sexuality projects. In the Sexuality project, it is rated "top importance." Our guideline WP:TECHNICAL says "Strive to make each part of every article as understandable as possible to the widest audience of readers who are likely to be interested in that material." If there was ever any doubt that this article has a wide audience, the fact that it gets 10,000 views a day, i.e. over 3.6 million a year, should make that clear.--agr (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't grasp your first issue. Whether we state "To accommodate smoother penetration of the vagina" or "This increase in moisture is vaginal lubrication, which reduces friction.", or both, like we currently do, it's all the same. And it's what anatomy and sexology books state as well. Vaginal lubrication accommodating smoother penetration of the vagina is also reducing damage to the vagina during rape or otherwise. Sexual arousal, and vaginal lubrication as a result, happens during rape despite the fact that the woman doesn't want to be raped. No matter the reason that vaginal lubrication happens, it is about smoother penetration of the vagina. There is nothing to indicate or prove otherwise. And I fail to see stating "To accommodate smoother penetration of the vagina" or similar so as male-centric. After all, that smoother penetration helps lesbians during lesbian sex too. Either way, I do not think it's productive to consider theories in this case (unless we are adding them lower in the article and are giving them appropriate weight, especially if they are WP:Fringe); I am interested in relaying what the anatomical literature states. I'm going to re-add "sexual intercourse" since I don't see that you objected to that, and since the paragraph is talking about non-human mammals as well.
As for STIs, why should we mention female condoms when they are barely used and are not as effective? I'm not opposed to mentioning them, but mentioning them with the feminism approach of "we must empower women" is not how I think. I agree to add "a short mention that barrier methods, including male and female condoms, help prevent disease transmission by keeping keeping bodily fluids from being transferred into the vagina." Well, something like that. But, being responsible Wikipedians, we should also mention that female condoms are less effective. As for your suggestion of "goes from the vulva back to the cervix" in place "reaches across the perineum superiorly and posteriorly toward the cervix," the previous wording is more accurate. If readers want to know what we mean, that's what the links are for. They can also research further on their own. We can only do so much to aid them without sacrificing the integrity of this article. As for the semi-colon, I noted that "I use semi-colons in such cases so that editors or readers know that the sentences are connected and are both sourced." So it's not just about the editor. And unless the semi-colon is grammatically incorrect, I don't see the issue.
It seems that that you are trying to apply the WP:TECHNICAL guideline to areas in this article it is not suited for. WP:Med and WP:Anatomy members have stated that our leads should be as accessible to the general public as possible, and that the more technical detail goes in the lower body of the article. That is what I've done. I've also made parts of the lower article as accessible as possible by using the plainer term initially and including the more technical term in parentheses, wherever possible, and by explaining a matter in parentheses if needed. I also agreed to rearrange two sections because of your "technical jargon" concern. I will not, however, agree to dumb down technical language to the point that we are not using the appropriate technical terms and are likely spreading misinformation as a result. I've stated it before, but this is not the Simple English Wikipedia. And, either way, there are, for the most part, no dumbed down terms for the terms are you are likely looking to replace. I am aware of how important this article is and the number of views it gets. The same goes for the Clitoris article when I elevated it to WP:Good article status; to some people's surprise no doubt, it is one of our most popular anatomical articles as well. Not as popular as the Vagina article, but not far behind either. And it uses a lot of technical language, as it should. Technical language did not stop that article from reaching WP:GA status, and it will not stop this one either. I'm sure that the reviewer will see that this article passes the WP:Good article criteria. I told you above, "Look at any of our other anatomical articles, including the Human brain article. In what way is the average reader really going to understand most of what is in the Human brain article, regardless of section order?" Would you also be proposing that we dumb down that article? And if so, how? Same applies to this article. In what way do you think we can dumb down this article even further? Most readers are not going to understand much of the "Layers, regions and histology" section because they do not understand histology. Sames goes for a lot of our mathematics articles; we can't dumb those down in a way that the average person will understand. WP:TECHNICAL is about making our articles more understandable where we can; it is not about artificially making our articles more understandable.
As a reminder, I am female. It seems that you are either unaware of that or sometimes forget. I state this because I don't need lectures on what is more beneficial to female readers, how important this article is, and so on. Not all women would agree with you on your views. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. My objection is not to the word "accommodate" but to the word "purpose." See Function (biology)#Teleology for a discussion of why the word "purpose" is usually avoided. This is a minor issue, however. Mentioning female condoms is also a minor issue, I just suggested mentioning them for completeness and to further illustrate the barrier concept. I have no problem with indicating relative lack of effectiveness, assuming it is sourced.
I did not know you are female. I normally do not look up who the editors I work with are, but since you brought it up I read your user pages and i find myself in agreement with much of what your wrote about Wikipedia content. In particular you say you care "a lot ... that people educate themselves on sexual matters." So I am puzzled about your opposition to removing unnecessary jargon. Making this article readable is not dumbing it down. I've edited many highly technical articles in mathematics and Physics to make them more readable. Our guideline WP:TECHNICAL says:
  • Use jargon and acronyms judiciously. Explain technical terms and expand acronyms when they are first used. In addition, you might consider using them sparingly thereafter, or not at all. Especially if there are many new terms being introduced all at once, substituting a more familiar English word might help reduce confusion (as long as accuracy is not sacrificed).
  • If no precision is lost, use common terms instead of technical terms. Substitute technical terms with common terms where they are completely equivalent.
The rewrite I proposed was intended to do exactly that. I would appreciate if you would explain why why you think it is less is less accurate.--agr (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
No need to apologize for the break. I can see how my previous post might have seemed a little heated and you might have wanted a break from the discussion. I viewed the break as a welcomed time out.
The word purpose was not used for that third paragraph and it still is not used for it.
As you likely saw by now, I added mention of male and female condoms, more on STI prevention and some pregnancy prevention detail. That is all I think is needed about condoms and STIs.
As for not knowing that I'm female, I'm used to editors recognizing me and knowing that I'm female, especially editors I've interacted with for years or on and off. I remember interacting with you at Talk:Death of Caylee Anthony, but just like I've assumed that you are male (I mean, besides the fact that the vast majority of Wikipedians are male, your username gives an indication that you are), you likely assumed I was male back then. So no big deal.
Caring that people educate themselves on sexual matters also means making sure that the material in question is accurate. I've also stated that I want the articles I significantly edit to be as accurate as possible. What you call jargon is not jargon in my eyes. If there is no valid reason to avoid a technical term, we should not be avoiding it. And if we are going to use a different term in its place, this does not mean that we should avoid the technical term altogether. We can pipelink the technical term or put it in parentheses after first mentioning the lay term. I stated above, "I've also made parts of the lower article as accessible as possible by using the plainer term initially and including the more technical term in parentheses, wherever possible, and by explaining a matter in parentheses if needed." So I have not been ignoring the WP:TECHNICAL guideline. Not using the technical terms at all is dumbing down the article. It's similar to using the terminology vaginal lips instead of labia minora; this is an example of how dumbing down can make an article less accurate. Furthermore, the vast majority of technical terms in this article have no dumbed down alternative to use in their place. Same goes for the Human brain article that I am also working on.
You stated that you have "edited many highly technical articles in mathematics and Physics to make them more readable." Given my familiarity with those topics, I would like to see examples of what you did. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
ArnoldReinhold, hello, I am a longtime editor of anatomy articles and noticed Flyer22 Reborn's work here - I have worked with her before and whilst we do not always have the same perspective I respect her work. I am also passionate about making anatomical articles easier to read (see my essay WP:ANATSIMPLIFY), but am also cognizant of the need to have accurate representations of our anatomy. I'll try and contribute constructively to the discussion here but would appreciate if we can localisewith our discussion to specific examples (I have trouble parsing paragraph-length replies) --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
LT910001 (Tom), thanks for weighing in and helping to simplify some text after my suggestion that you might be able to ease ArnoldReinhold's concerns. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


I think that's enough for today. I will continue to edit a little later. This really is a very educational article and I think it has been very well written. Some thoughts:

  • Happy to be re-edited or discuss my edits--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Would suggest, Flyer22, that consistent terms are used to refer to parts of the vagina. I think inner/outer is probably the most logical way to refer to the part close to the cervix (inner) and the part closer to the outside (outer). --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Have broken away the microanatomy into a separate section. It's confusing to talk about it in the same paragraph as gross anatomy as one refers to the position of the gross organ whereas the other refers to what happens when the organ is viewed under a microscope. Hope that is OK. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • In my last edit I have boldly moved some anatomical information from the layers/regions section to 'overview' and then removed the title. This I have done "boldly" so am happy if you revert to discuss. My feeling is that such a short overview section duplicates the overview function of the lead and it would be a logical place to plop down some gross anatomy related information there.--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm okay with most of your first round of edits. The only ones I'm not keen on so far are this and this one. The reasons why are because I don't see a need to separate layers, regions and histology; to me, for this article, it flows better in one section and is unnecessarily broken up when split, which is why I was against splitting that material in 2014. I think it's easier for readers to locate the information on layers and regions with the previous setup/headings. That stated, I'm not strongly opposed to the new setup. I had considered splitting the "Histology" section before, and tried it briefly, and I had considered making a "Blood and nerve supply" section, but the blood and nerve supply material was too small on its own. It still is. But as for removal of the "Overview" title, the issue I see now is that the material that you have moved up will be accidentally overlooked by some readers from the table of contents section; at the beginning of the #Section break discussion, see the statement made by me about such accidents. I was not fond of the "Overview" title (which is the title ArnoldReinhold added) because, as you noted, the lead is supposed to be the overview, but the material that ArnoldReinhold moved there fits better there than where I originally had it and the "Overview" title ensured that readers would not accidentally overlook that material from the table of contents. The material you moved up has added on to what ArnoldReinhold moved and it's not that small anymore; nor is it redundant to the lead. It's still an overview, except now it doesn't have the helpful heading. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Per above, I've re-added the Overview heading. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
One more thing: If it's felt that the section is not really an overview anymore because of the new material moved there, we can obviously brainstorm ideas for a different heading, or on if it would be better to split the material into two separate sections and/or move some of the material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Happy to retain "Overview" respecting the consensus here. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Also, LT910001, if any thoughts for significant changes (including any more thoughts on rearrangement of sections) to the article cross your mind, will you consider proposing them here on the talk page first? I state this is because I've had the outline of this article in my head for years, with ideas about how I want to further expand or tweak it, and would rather have time to ponder/discuss/adjust to any significant changes before they are implemented. If it's you simply expanding material, don't worry about a heads up on the talk page first. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Will do. No further rearrangements planned :). --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
LT910001 (Tom) Thanks for joining this discussion. My interest is making the article readable to the huge number of people who visit, many who may not have an alternative source of factual information. That needn’t mean dumbing the article down or presenting inaccurate or incomplete information. Our guideline WP:UPFRONT addresses the problem by instructing us to “put the least obscure parts of the article up front. It's perfectly fine for later sections to be more technical, if necessary. Those who are not interested in details will simply stop reading at some point, which is why the material they are interested in needs to come first.”--agr 17:55, 29 January 2017‎ (UTC)
At the risk of incurring some wrath, I will reply in point form. That way it is much easier for us to focus our discussions on different areas rather than lots of areas at once.--Tom (LT) (talk) 07:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Agree we should be trying to represent content simply as much as possible. That said, our main function as an encyclopedia is to present encyclopedic content and as much as we can try the tricky information will still need to be covered somewhere. A structure that goes: lead (simple), section titles (readers can choose what they want to read), paragraph format (simple first, then difficult)... any more than this is, I think, excessive. It follows the manual of style entry (and I dare say logic) to talk about the gross anatomy of something in the first section of an article - ie, what that thing is. If a reader finds this difficult or boring they are free, I think, to read a section below this. It is unfortunate but inescapable that this content will need to be covered at some point. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
While I agree with most of the edits you make, I question moving the two paragraphs to the “Overview” section. They present a wall of jargon that will stop many readers from reading the next two sections, which are of general interest. I would suggest putting the two paragraphs in their own section, perhaps before the Microanatomy section. Alternatively, the first two sentences of the paragraph starting “Where the vaginal lumen surrounds…” could be moved to the end of that paragraph, as the next sentences are of more general interest and could go first. --agr 17:55, 29 January 2017‎ (UTC)
I would argue that our aim here is to be encyclopedic, not to be aesthetically pleasing. Readers troubled by "walls of text"... that is the nature of the beast; we are a written encyclopedia. If there is consensus then perhaps we can add a "gross anatomy" subsection but then it will just duplicate the "overview" subsection (and lead, to boot). I am afraid that some jargon is necessary to accurately portray the anatomy of the vagina. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
One point of disagreement I’d appreciate a third opinion on is this sentence in the first paragraph of the Overview section: “It reaches across the perineum superiorly and posteriorly toward the cervix.” I find the sentence adds little information to the first and fourth sentences of the paragraph, and the use of anatomical jargon here seems unnecessary. First of all, the word “superiorly” is not needed, as there is no pelvic organ inferior to the perineum. Unless I am missing something, the word “posteriorly” could be replaced by “back” i.e. “It reaches across the perineum back toward the cervix.” Perhaps there was an intent to indicate that the vagina is inclined upward in a standing woman, but I did not get that from the sentence in the current revision.--agr (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Good point. Have tried simplifying. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. And may I just state that I think the "function" section in particular does an excellent job and is very clear. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't have much more to add but am happy to help provide a third opinion should there be a need. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that Function is in pretty good shape. Per my earlier suggestion, I rearranged the sentences in the second paragraph of the Overview subsection in what I think is a more logical front-to-back order. I only added a short bit of text from our tenting effect article to clarify the sentence about cross section. I'm not sure the mons sentence belongs in this article (I just moved it), but I'll let others make that call. Also I'm not sure the world "Behind" is needed. A separate issue I see in this article is that we have two overlapping sections “Modification” under "Clinical significance" and “Reasons for vaginal modification” under "Society and culture." I think they would best be combined under one or the other major heading. But overall, I think we are getting close to being ready for a good article review.--agr (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC) --agr (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I obviously agree with LT910001 about not going overboard with dumbing down the article, and with the notion that we should be an encyclopedia first and foremost.
I have the "Modification" and "Reasons for vaginal modification" sections set up the way that I do for the same reasons that I have a similar set up in the Clitoris article. Vaginoplasty, labiaplasty and female genital mutilation are all clinical significance matters, but they are also society and culture matters and the society and culture material, which is what the "Reasons for vaginal modification" section concerns, doesn't overlap much with the Modification section. I am opposed to combining the material, since reasons for vaginal modification are a significant aspect of the Society and culture section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
And speaking of the Tenting effect article, which is simply two sentences at the moment, I've been meaning to merge and redirect it to this article; the tenting effect is covered in the Sexual activity section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I will also be looking to add more on genital modification to this article; specifically material about the vagina rather than the vulva. There is certainly more to add. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


Per ArnoldReinhold, I went ahead and removed the mons pubis material.

LT910001, regarding this, which changed the "reaches across the perineum superiorly and posteriorly toward the cervix" wording, do you think the current replacement wording is the best wording for simplifying that part? Or do you have another suggestion? Do you think we should retain "perineum"? Precision is why I preferred the previous text. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Good point. I lost the part about the external opening. I've retained the simplified description of the passage of the canal though. The diagram next to it helps. How is it now? --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that, LT910001. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Flyer22 Reborn on merging Tenting effect. More content on genital modification is welcome, but I don't see how splitting the topic helps our readers. I think the second paragraph of Overview is looking good. In general we should not rely on diagrams as there are readers who are visually impaired. But I would suggest replacing the cross section diagram with (or just adding) File:Blausen 0400 FemaleReproSystem 02.png which is much clearer and calls out features mentioned in the text that the existing diagram omits. On the other hand it does not call out the rectum or urethra, which might be a reason to keep both. One other suggestion is to add a subhead "Effects of aging" and maybe expand what we have already. A brief mention in the intro might be appropriate.--agr (talk) 15:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I'll give not splitting the content some more thought, but splitting it at the Clitoris article works (from what I can see). My rationale for having it split at that article is because the modification material is important to both the Clinical significance section and the Society and culture section. Leaving societal/cultural reasons to the Society and culture section makes more sense to me. And that's my same rationale for the split at this article. That stated, there is a lot more to state about modifying the clitoris, especially for societal/cultural reasons, than there is to state about modifying the vagina...especially for societal/cultural reasons. So I will give that matter more thought. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I can see both sides of this coin and think that the article could be written both ways, so I am not too fussed. IMO I prefer content to be separated as it is, if possible, because it is easier to read and will help direct future editors to an appropriate section. But as stated not fussed. --Tom (LT) 22:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
As for not relying on diagrams because there are readers who are visually impaired, there are also readers who are not visually impaired, though and diagrams can be helpful. Your suggested replacement image is redundant to File:Female Reproductive Lateral.JPG image we already have in the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
These diagrams do seem to duplicate each other. The current one I find easier visually because it only highlights the vagina, whereas the full colour version is more difficult to tease out the organ visually IMO. --Tom (LT) 22:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
As for adding an "Effects of aging" section, the effects on aging material, which is just a little bit of material, goes with the Microanatomy section; so I don't think we should split that material. We could rename the section "Layers and aging" (or something like that). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
As you state (and I agree), it is a small amount of material and I think it fits well in the current microanatomy section. I don't think there is enough to place in a single section. --Tom (LT) 22:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
LT910001, any thoughts on these latest suggestions? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, have replied in point form above. --Tom (LT) 22:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Tom. I went ahead and duplicated my signature above so that it's clearer that you are responding to me. I know that I've stated it before, but I don't like having my posts split up for replies; to me, it's messier and can be easily confusing when it comes to who is commenting and responding. I'm glad that you signed each point you made so that it's clearer that it's you commenting.
As for the image, I didn't think that ArnoldReinhold was suggesting that we replace File:Female Reproductive Lateral.JPG with File:Blausen 0400 FemaleReproSystem 02.png. This is because he stated "cross section diagram," and my mind didn't associate these two images with "cross section." Are you talking about those two images, ArnoldReinhold? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I am suggesting replacing the File:Female Reproductive Lateral.JPG image with File:Blausen 0400 FemaleReproSystem 02.png. As for the effects of aging, the material I was referring to was the last two sentences of the Secretions section. The fact that neither of you found that material supports, I think, the value of a separate subhead. There is much more to say about effects of aging, including use of topical treatments vs full body HRT. Use of personal lubricants might be mentioned as well. The expanded material might be moved to Clinical significance. The Microanatomy stuff can stay where it is.--agr (talk) 13:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Regarding your proposed image change, I don't feel strongly about it. What do you think of Tom stating that "These diagrams do seem to duplicate each other. The current one I find easier visually because it only highlights the vagina, whereas the full colour version is more difficult to tease out the organ visually IMO."?
Regarding the effects of aging material, which you recently edited, there are two areas in this article which focus on the impact of aging with regard to the vagina (well, disregarding the vaginal cancer sentence in the "Infections, safe sex, and disorders" section). There's the bit in the Microanatomy section, and there's the bit in the Secretions section. Since I added both pieces, and am very familiar with what is in this article, I didn't miss the material. I assumed you were talking about the content in the Microanatomy section because you didn't specify. In both cases, the content is where it should be. The content that you want to break out of the Secretions section is a little bit of material and is important to information about vaginal secretions. Personal lubricant material, which is a sexual activity matter, can also be added to that section or to the Sexual activity section, but we shouldn't go into much detail about estrogen replacement therapy, hormone replacement therapy (menopause) and personal lubricant at this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Looking at the Vaginal microbiota section, I'm reminded that it has some material on the pH balance of a human female's vagina across the lifespan, but this material is important to that section. Creating an "Effects of aging" section would be breaking away material that is better served in their respective sections. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The highlighted area in the File:Female Reproductive Lateral.JPG image includes the uterus and perineum as well as the vagina, which could be confusing. I created a new version of the Blausen image, File:Blausen 0400 FemaleReproSystem 02b.png that has all the missing callouts, and the article section that the image is in discusses most of the structures labeled in the new image, several of which are not labeled in the current Female Reproductive Lateral image. As for the effects of aging, I think it is an important topic that deserves a coherent treatment, not a few sentences sprinkled throughout the article. I think it would be better in Clinical significance, but Sexual activity would be a reasonable choice as a location too. The aging material in other sections does not have to be removed if it is needed for completeness there.--agr (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I would be fine with using File:Blausen 0400 FemaleReproSystem 02b.png. I assume you would be okay with it too, Tom (LT)? As for an "Effects of aging" section, I still disagree because of my previous points on the matter. I don't see that the material needs its own section. As for the suggestion to keep the existing content in the respective sections and create an "Effects of aging" section, this would result in duplication if one were to fill it with material that is already stated in the previous sections. And given that an "Effects of aging" section should have that material, there would be duplication. As for placing the material in the Sexual activity section, not all of the effects of aging material is about sexual activity. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
No objections. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Tom (LT), regarding the image or creating an "Effects of aging" section? Or both? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Clarification - no objections to the image. Objection to the 'effects of aging' (particularly if included on 'sexual activity') --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I've changed out the image. I thought Sexual activity was Flyer22 Reborn suggestion for were a section on Effects of aging belonged. Maybe I misunderstood, but if there is no support for such a section it doesn't matter. Perhaps it is time to move to a Good article review. Thanks Tom and Flyer22 for your efforts in improving this article.--agr (talk) 02:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Fantastic! I'm "signing out" of this article now and will stop checking regularly. Please ping me if my view is requested in future discussions :). Good luck!--Tom (LT) (talk) 08:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, ArnoldReinhold and LT910001. As mentioned, there's more I want to add to the article. After that, I'll nominate the article for GA status. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)