Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:42, 18 December 2014

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Anatomy High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Misplaced Pages. 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has not yet been associated with a particular anatomical discipline. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sexology and sexuality Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Misplaced Pages is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

If you find some images offensive you can configure your browser to mask them.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: "The 50 most-viewed Misplaced Pages articles in 2009 and 2008". The Daily Telegraph. August 17, 2009.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: "Misplaced Pages's penis and vagina pages: Their colorful history and popular present". Slate (magazine). January 8, 2014.

Archives

Archive 1 (2002 to March 2007) Archive 2 (March 2007 to Aug 2008) Archive 3 (Sept 2008 to Jan 2012) Archive 4 (November 2010 to August 2012) Archive 5 (November 2012 to April 2014)

G-spot

I was wondering if we can paraphrase and use Barbara Keesling's statement from here in this article.—Khabboos (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Khabboos, my answer is no. That source is about something Barbara Keesling is calling the Cul-de-Sac; it seems that she is referring to the recto-uterine pouch. She is claiming that the "Cul-de-Sac" is orgasmic, and, judging by the title of her book, that it's "the ultimate pleasure spot" for women. It's just more misinformation for women (and for men) that she's sending out. The G-spot isn't even scientifically proven and is still highly debated by scientists. And now we have Keesling, in an Esquire source from 2009, essentially claiming a new G-spot? No, such unscientific claims about female sexuality are better left out of the Vagina article. In the article, we already mention the G-spot and the debate about that. Flyer22 (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Flyer22!—Khabboos (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The Esquire article seems to be rather tongue-in-cheek – lighthearted and certainly not a suitably reliable source. (Actually the article indicates that the "cul-de-sac" is the fornix, not the recto-uterine pouch. I am aware that other sources may indicate otherwise.) Axl ¤ 18:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that vaginal fornix bit about the article, Axl. But it seemed to me the vaginal fornix bit was the author of the article's wording. And since the recto-uterine pouch is sometimes referred to as the cul-de-sac, I figured that Keesling must be referring to the recto-uterine pouch. For example, our Recto-uterine pouch and Vaginal fornix articles differentiate between the vaginal fornix and the cul-de-sac. Flyer22 (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Optical illusion

Do any of you notice this optical illusion:

Facing my computer but looking at it from below my eyes, the vagina picture looks like the face of an ugly baby. The vaginal opening is the baby's mouth and the clitoris is the baby's nose. (I really don't know what to say is the baby's eyes.) Try this illusion yourself. (To make sure you're doing the right thing, scroll the article so that the vagina image is at the lower right corner of your computer screen and you're directly facing the upper right corner.) I'm very sorry to bring up something that might seem offensive, but it's just an interesting illusion. Georgia guy (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Photo

Im a little concerned about the photo...It looks like a childs or teems vagina....I would prefer to see a womans...my vagina hasnt looked like that since I was about 13.... Lady Ez (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2014‎ (UTC)

Hello, Lady Ez (talk · contribs). This has been brought up times before; see Talk:Vagina/Archive 5. From what I can tell, the image is of a shaved vulva. Look at the image close-up: File:Vaginal opening - english description.jpg. There are razor bumps or pores that indicate that substantial hair was once on that vulva, which means that the vulva is not prepubescent. I assume it's an adult vulva rather than a teenage vulva. In any case, it's the best image of a vagina (rather of the vaginal opening in its normal state) that Misplaced Pages has. By that, I mean, an image clearly showing the vagina, without the vaginal opening being concealed by the vulva or artificially spread (meaning fingers stretching the opening). The fingers in the picture are merely stretching areas of the vulva to show the vaginal opening.

On a side note: Remember to sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Misplaced Pages talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. I signed your username for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 12:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I assume you meant "teen?" Nonetheless, the photo is a good one, "good" that it effectively illustrates the detail needed for the article. In other words, with tons of hair down there, it's hard to label it. If it's hard to label, it's hard to explain. If it's hard to explain, men might not understand all of it. Wait...Jimsteele9999 (talk) 01:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I've read with amusement some of the archived threads about the so-called "pornographic" nature of photographs of the female anatomy. Defending the article's photograph must be exhausting at times. Perhaps this image will be a little less contentious and more of a compromise: https://en.wikipedia.org/Pelvic_examination#mediaviewer/File:Skenes_gland.jpg

• The photo is very clear.
• The labels are nearly the same as the one in current use.
• This difference is that this photo includes a gloved hand, encouraging the idea that this is part of a bona fide medical exam and not a random image uploaded by the...gasp!...randy. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 01:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Wordreader, as you may know, we use that image as the lead image for the Skene's gland and Bartholin's gland articles. I wouldn't mind using it as the lead image for this article as well, though doing so would add a redundancy factor considering that it is the lead image at those other articles. However, people will still complain about showing a real-life image of the vagina, and, in some cases, a drawn or other non-real-life image of the vagina, even if less complaints result from the use of the image you have proposed above. Flyer22 (talk) 01:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

If you like the image, I don't see how using it in other articles signifies. If it fits here, it fits. For those people who want a photographic image of an actual vagina showing the tubular structure, the only way that's going to happen is if someone uploads a photo of a sagittal section of a female cadaver. That would add another layer of headache! Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 03:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Wordreader, the image is okay. I feel indifferent to any of the image choices for a lead image of the Vagina article...unless they only show the vulva and not the vagina or unless they show the vagina in some stretched state instead of a relaxed state. As for redundancy, I'm not big on redundancy (even when I'm being redundant). I don't like it when we are demonstrating a structure with a lead image and then point to a different article for people to learn about a different structure...but what we are pointing to has the same lead image. If you want to change the lead image to your above proposed image, go ahead and do so. Flyer22 (talk) 03:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe the current image is clearer. the proposed image stretches the skin far beyond normal appearance.IdreamofJeanie (talk) 08:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

When it comes to these two images of the vagina, they look pretty much the same. And both stretch the vulva a bit. I noted on my talk page that since Wordreader's proposal will undoubtedly help decrease the complaints about that vagina image being a prepubescent child's vagina, or what Naomi Wolf considers to be abnormal, as noted in this discussion, or the vulva of a porn star, changing the lead image to his suggestion would help. But again, I don't care too much about which image is used. Flyer22 (talk) 10:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• I had not realised that there is a discussion about the images in the infobox. I think that it would be better to replace a vulva image in the infobox with a lateral diagram of the structures, because it shows the internal anatomy better and goes well with the AP image above. This one would be suitable - File:Female_reproductive_system_lateral_nolabel.png. A vulva image would be better placed in the section "Vaginal opening and hymen". Snowman (talk) 12:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I reverted you here because, given the misinformation and misconceptions about the vagina, and that it is such a big factor in both female and male sexuality, I think that we should show an actual vagina for the lead image or at least Wordreader's proposed image, so that readers see exactly what it looks like upfront. Sure, the two initial proposed images above show the vaginal opening rather than the vagina as a whole, but showing more of a real-life vagina (or an image that looks like it's a real-life vagina) would require stretching the vagina open, almost as though in an act of fisting (and we certainly shouldn't show the vagina in that unnatural state as the lead image), or it would require a scope/instrument looking into the vagina (which also is not ideal for a lead image). And the lead image is already accompanied by a diagram anyway. I also don't like your proposed image because it includes the much debated/disputed G-spot. Yes, I know that it's an image used elsewhere on Misplaced Pages, such as at the Cervix article, but I think that using that image can be highly irresponsible since it is presenting the G-spot as some valid entity, when, in reality, it is not valid to the vast majority of researchers (at least as far as categorizing it as some distinct entity that exists at the very spot that the diagram shows it to be at for every human female). Flyer22 (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

There are similar diagrams that do not include the G-spot in the labeling; such as File:Blausen_0400_FemaleReproSystem_02.png, which would make a very good infobox image. I think that medical illustrations that showed the anatomical relations of the vagina would be more informative for the infobox than an AP view of the vulva. Snowman (talk) 14:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Diagrams without the G-spot would certainly be better. But I still think that we should use one of the aforementioned images of the vaginal opening as the lead image, whether we use the current diagram with that or a diagram you have proposed with that (minus the G-spot). I have alerted WP:Anatomy and WP:Med to this discussion, as seen here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Important as the vaginal orifice may be, the vulval photographs actually show a tiny portion of the vagina and so to me a vulval photograph is not a good choice for the infobox. Snowman (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I still think that it's important to show a real-life aspect of the vagina for the lead image, so I still prefer either the current lead image of the vaginal opening or Wordreader's proposed image of the vaginal opening. Wordreader's proposed image doesn't show as much of the vulva as the current lead image, and (per above) is less controversial than the current lead image, so it is probably best to go along with that one. Again, I don't mind much which accompanying diagram image we use to go along with that. Flyer22 (talk) 05:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

If a photograph of the vulva is to be shown in the infox, I think it should be properly captioned with the age of the subject. The current photo shown could have an explanatory note on the absence of pubic hairs and any other relevant details to help readers. Nevertheless, as I have stated above, I think that the infobox photograph should be replaced with an anatomical illustration that shows the anatomical relations of the vagina. Snowman (talk) 12:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

If the age is provided on the image's description, then, sure, note the age. But for the current lead image that is up there now, an image that is certainly the vulva of someone who is nowhere close to prepubescent (per what I've stated above in this section), the age is not provided. So no age will get mentioned as long as that image is the lead image. And as for the other image, like I already stated, Wordreader's proposed image doesn't show as much of the vulva; no age is mentioned there either. No age is provided for the vast majority of anatomical images on Misplaced Pages. There are currently two lead images in the Vagina article (a photograph and a diagram), and I don't see why one of the lead images in the Vagina article should not be a real-life, or seemingly real-life, image of the vaginal opening. Flyer22 (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Images

Why do the articles on both vagina and vulva have pictures of women's genitals yet the article on penis is full of animal pictures? Motion to have a different mammalian vagina as the main picture. 80.43.91.138 (talk) 09:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC) I mean, the whole article is mainly focussed on humans, whereas the penis article is all about different animals. Why is this? Why the human focus when so many species have vaginas?80.43.91.138 (talk) 10:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

This topic was discussed at this talk page before; see Talk:Vagina/Archive 5#Human-centric. The Vagina article is mostly about humans because humans are the WP:Primary topic for this subject, and because the vagina is not well studied in other animals; in other words, there is not a lot to state about vaginas in other animals. The same applies to the vulva, and the clitoris (which is a part of the vulva), though there is significantly more to state about the clitoris than the rest of the vulva or vagina in other animals. By extension, there are not as many images of the clitoris, vulva as a whole or vagina in other animals as there are images of the penis in other animals. Because of these reasons, this article follows the WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy format of having an "Other animals" section in an article that is primarily about humans.

On a side note: I moved your comment down, per Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines#Layout. Flyer22 (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I also changed your section title from "Image" to "Images" because this discussion is not about one image. Flyer22 (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Archives 5

This section of the Archives is listed in the info-box above, but not in the smaller box below it with the filing cabinet drawing. (Sorry, I haven't read about wrangling archive listings.) Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 01:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed that; it clearly needs fixing. Flyer22 (talk) 01:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. This page is archived manually. --NeilN 01:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Genital vs. urogenital

As can be seen with this and this edit, Snowmanradio emphasized "urogenital" over "genital" in the lead. There are two reasons that I don't think that this is a good idea. The first reason is because it is not often that the vagina is referred to as urogenital; when it is referred to as that, at least in my experience, it is usually in the context of vaginal abnormalities regarding the urogenital sinus. See, for example, what this laysource states. Of course it's not the best medical source to use, but I'm using it as the laysource that it is for this point: It states, "The urethra and vagina are separate anatomical entities in normal females. But in rare instances, they are joined in what urologists call a urogenital sinus anomaly... ...A urogenital sinus anomaly is a defect present at birth in which the vagina and urethra open into a common channel, rather than separately. There are two general types of urogenital sinus anomalies. In a low confluence urogenital sinus anomaly, the common channel is short, the urethral opening is close to its normal location and the vagina is almost normal in length. In a high confluence urogenital sinus anomaly, the common channel is long, the urethral opening is internal and the vagina is quite short. This type is sometimes associated with an anus that is located too far forward."

And this scholarly book source (Dewhurst's Textbook of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2012, page 423), which I will soon use for the embryonic development material of the Vagina article, states: "The debate which continues concerns that portion of the vagina formed from the Müllerian ducts and that from the urogenital sinus by the growth of the sinovaginal bulb. Some believe that the upper four-fifths of the vagina is formed by the Müllerian duct and the lower fifth by the urogenital sinus, while others believe that sinus upgrowth extends to the cervix displacing the Müllerian component completely and the vagina is thus derived wholly from the endoderm of the urogenital sinus. It seems certain that some of the vagina is derived from the urogenital sinus, but it has not been determined whether or not the Müllerian component is involved."

The other reason that I don't think that we should use "urogenital" for the lead or lower in the article is because far too many people, especially boys and men, think that human females urinate out of the vagina. Google it, and you will see that it's true if you don't believe me. This has been true for some of our male Wikipedians or their relatives as well, as seen at Talk:Urination/Archive 1#Appropriateness of photo and Talk:Urination/Archive 1#Consensus about the picture; take a look at the comments by David Shankbone at 22:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC), 05:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC) and at 08:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC) in that first discussion, for example. Calling the vagina "urogenital" only further confuses people and makes the ones clueless as to how human females urinate think that human females urinate out of their vaginas. As noted by the laysource above, the vagina and urethra usually do not open into a common channel. So unless we explain that in the lead, I will remain against referring to the vagina as urogenital in the Vagina article. Simply calling the penis and vagina "genital" is enough anyway.

I will alert WP:Anatomy and WP:Med to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Alerted, as seen here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Urogenital is incorrect. Support revert. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 17:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Prior to my edits, lead implied that the external urethral orifice in the female is a genital orifice, which is incorrect. The adjective urogenital is useful. Note that the dictionary definition in the Oxford Concise Medical Dictionary of urogenital is the organs and tissues related to both excretion and reproduction, which are anatomically closely related. I am aware of the controversy over the embryological origin of the lower third of the vagina, and I think that the word urogenital as an adjective does not imply a direct relation to the urogenital sinus. I have amended the article and removed one iteration of the word urogenital and kept the other in. I have made other amendments to improve the paragraph with the comments above in mind, so there is no need to revert it. Of course, it may be possible to make further improvements to the paragraph. Snowman (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, CFCF.

Snowmanradio, this edit you made is better and makes clear the urination matter. So I appreciate you tweaking that sentence. I know that the term urogenital, like our Misplaced Pages article on it states, can simply indicate "close proximity"; but I objected to referring to the vagina as urogenital per what I stated above in this section. Flyer22 (talk) 05:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The lead is still much too complex for the average reader and needs to be simplified. We need to lose as much medical jargon as possible in the lead. Urogenital is an example of a word that really adds nothing that can't be said with plainer language. I suggest that we lose it altogether from the lead. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I obviously don't mind getting rid of "urogenital," and, because I've seen Snowmanradio edit the Cervix article and that there were sometimes concerns about him being too technical there, I was tempted to remind him to keep the language simple at this article. However, though we should adhere to WP:Technical (which is a guideline, not an essay), I am against dumbing down the language to the point where it is like we are on Simple English Misplaced Pages. I don't think that we should be replacing anatomical terms simply for the sake of making sure that people know what we mean. We have WP:Wikilinks and parentheses at our disposal to help readers better understand what we mean. User:LT910001/sandbox/Simplifying anatomical terminology can also help. Looking at the current lead, I can't see what you think is too complex; and I don't think that just because I'm familiar with those anatomical terms. But since we are already discussing the lead at #Cultural in lede below, I feel that we should keep discussion of the overall lead in one section. Flyer22 (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages articles have a broad audience from young students, the general population, English as second language readers, PhD students, and professionals. With care we can reach all of these readers at their reading level and level of interest. The idea is to write the start of the article in plain language with the first few sentences being a very simple definition. This makes it clear that the reader is at the correct article and gives them a quick overview of the topic. The next few paragraphs are a plain language overview/introduction of the article content that is accessible to average reader. Later in the article more complex topics and more technical language may be appropriate. But there is no reason to use more complex language when simpler language says the same thing.

It is challenging to explain the concepts to someone with a limited medical or technical vocabulary, or a lower level of comprehension. But can be fun and rewarding, too. I'm fine discussing it in one location. Maybe we should open a new section where we can write an overview/introduction in plain language. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Using plain English is one thing; dumbing down aspects to the point of making them a Simple English Misplaced Pages matter is another; and, as stated above, I am firmly against the latter. This is not the Simple English Misplaced Pages; nor should it be. We should only forgo anatomical terms when needed. The Cervix article is a WP:Good article; it uses language in the lead that I think should be used in the lead of that article, and I don't see the language that is currently in the Vagina article's lead as any more complex than what is currently in the lead of the Cervix article. In fact, from what I see, the current lead of the Vagina article uses less technical language than the Cervix article uses for its lead. All that stated, I am open to what lead wording you might propose for the Vagina article and am fine with you starting a new discussion section with your proposal(s) there. Flyer22 (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately a large number of Misplaced Pages science and health articles are not accessible to the average reader. I put the introduction of this article in a tool that checks the reading level and it came back as a college reading level text. This puts the material well outside the level of comprehension of the vast majority of readers in the world.

It's more work but in the end we can do so much more with the content if it is written for a broad audience. For example, by always using plain language in the overview, and when it makes sense lower in the article, it makes it much easier to translate the article into other languages that do not have scientific/technical words that are equivalent to the English term. Flyer22, I hope to persuade you of the goodness of writing for the broad audience of readers. :-) Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 22:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I have the broader audience in mind when I write Misplaced Pages articles, usually anyway. If the reading level for this article is as high as you estimate (I don't see that, since what is currently in the lead is found in just about any middle school or high school anatomy book), that is the difference between the English Misplaced Pages and the Simple English Misplaced Pages. If readers want a simple Vagina article, they can go to the latter one. The writing in the lead at that latter one is not how I think that the English Misplaced Pages article on the Vagina should be. Furthermore, some technical words cannot be replaced by everyday words, and I don't think that we should try in those cases. If your proposal is significantly like what I see in the lead of the Vagina article at the Simple English Misplaced Pages, you won't win me over. You can try, though. And I am open to seeing you try. Flyer22 (talk) 22:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

To start off, urogenital may in a dictionary say that, but its common usage is of organs relating to the urinary tracts, something which the vagina does not. The vagina is very seldom going to be referred to as urogenital, and isn't so clinically.

Second, I read the lede of this article, and it's exceedingly technical. I think what has been done is we've tried to cram as much information into the lede as possible, resulting in less than stellar readability. I really think we should strive towards high readability of the lede. Either the lede should be longer and simpler, or should be shortened substantially. I'm very happy with the way the lede of Heart has turned out, and it scores just out of reach of a 13-15 year olds readability on the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease test, which is decent.

For some inspiration of how to simplify the Vagina article, this is from CNX Anatomy & Physiology (CC-BY) (some edits), and might give an idea of how it could be simplified.

The vagina is a muscular canal (approximately 10 cm long) that serves as the entrance to the reproductive tract. It also serves as the exit from the uterus during menstruation and childbirth. The outer walls of the anterior and posterior vagina are formed into longitudinal columns, or ridges, and the superior portion of the vagina—called the fornix—meets the protruding uterine cervix. The walls of the vagina are lined with an outer, fibrous adventitia; a middle layer of smooth muscle; and an inner mucous membrane with transverse folds called rugae. Together, the middle and inner layers allow the expansion of the vagina to accommodate intercourse and childbirth. The thin, perforated hymen can partially surround the opening to the vaginal orifice. The hymen can be ruptured with strenuous physical exercise, penile–vaginal intercourse, and childbirth. The Bartholin’s glands and the lesser vestibular glands (located near the clitoris) secrete mucus, which keeps the vestibular area moist.

The vagina is home to a normal population of microorganisms that help to protect against infection by pathogenic bacteria, yeast, or other organisms that can enter the vagina. In a healthy woman, the most predominant type of vaginal bacteria is from the genus Lactobacillus. This family of beneficial bacterial flora secretes lactic acid, and thus protects the vagina by maintaining an acidic pH (below 4.5). Potential pathogens are less likely to survive in these acidic conditions. Lactic acid, in combination with other vaginal secretions, makes the vagina a self-cleansing organ. However, douching—or washing out the vagina with fluid—can disrupt the normal balance of healthy microorganisms, and actually increase a woman’s risk for infections and irritation. Indeed, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommend that women do not douche, and that they allow the vagina to maintain its normal healthy population of protective microbial flora.

While this only scores 31 on the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease test, it is an improvement over 27 (current lede), and there is more that can be improved. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 19:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, CFCF. I think that you know I agree about "urogenital." And your input on the lead is a help as well. I don't think that the current lead is too big, though. We definitely need to make sure we summarize the article as a whole. Flyer22 (talk) 00:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Vulvovaginal subarticles

With this edit, Mikael Häggström broke out the vast majority of the vaginal infection/disease material and made it into an article called Vaginal disease. I see the validity in that, but, per WP:Content fork, we should strive to keep aspects of a topic in one article instead of causing readers to go to multiple articles...unless necessary. I don't think that it was necessary to break that material into its own article. I'm not too opposed to its existence, but I do want to point out that with the Vulva disease and Vaginal disease articles existing, there is not much left to cover in the Vulvovaginal health article, and I really don't see the Vulva disease article as being needed; that bit of material can more than adequately be covered at the Vulva article.

I will alert WP:Anatomy and WP:Med to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Alerted, as seen here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Cultural in lede

Hi,

I took the cultural language out of the lede because it didn't seem to have enough background to be more than random comments. It is not as much that it lacks references as it seems really to lack context that could come by reading the references. Maybe a better wording of a cultural summary would work but it reads really odd to me now. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 01:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Current wording: Cultural perceptions of the vagina have persisted throughout history; these perceptions range from viewing the vagina as the focus of sexual desire, a metaphor for life via birth, an organ inferior to the penis, or as visually unappealing or otherwise vulgar. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 01:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, FloNight. As you know, I reverted you. When I added that wording, it was as part of a huge expansion to the article back in June of this year. Like I stated in this followup edit to that addition, "Of course...focusing on the article body before the article lead can be more important, since it can tell an editor how to format the lead, but this article expansion has given me a decent or OK-ish outline for the lead." So it was more of an outline matter for that portion of the lead, noting that the lead needs to mention the society and culture aspects of the vagina; I think that these aspects should be the final paragraph. I know that my wording on that is not the best, and I was certainly going to get back to working on that part of the lead after taking care of the rest of the article first. I'm fine with you or someone else creating a better summary for that material, but I do think that all of those points I included should be in the summary. Flyer22 (talk) 05:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Flyer22, Thank you for the work that you are doing to improve the article. I would appreciate working together to get the lede in tip top shape so that it is something that could be used used as a standalone piece. Think of it being used for background information or an introduction for a topic related to the vagina, or something that would be good for translation. More later. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. And, yes, per WP:Lead, I understand what you mean. I still believe that it's usually best to have an article in top shape before worrying about having that article's lead in top shape. This is because, like I noted above, the body of the article lets us know how the lead is best formatted. Then again, since what will be in the Vagina article is pretty much what is there now, except for the tweaks and expansions that will follow, working on the lead now would not be significantly different than working on it later. Flyer22 (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, for the most part the introduction has some jumpy grammar and it seems amateurish to me. I think that use use of the word urogenial is appropriate, but if someone would like to rewrite it without that word then I would not worry about it too much. I think that many improvements could be made. Nothing scientific in the introduction is controversial, so I think that the in-line references could be removed into the main body of the article, and this would make re-writing the introduction easier. Snowman (talk) 12:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

For those wanting to know what Snowmanradio means by "urogenital," see the #Genital vs. urogenital section above, where I and others have disagreed with his decision to use "urogenital." As for references in the lead, WP:MOSMED, which the guideline for formatting anatomy articles is a part of, is currently having a debate about whether or not to include references in the lead; the WP:Consensus there so far is to include references in the lead of medical articles. Anatomy is surely an aspect of the medical field. And the cultural aspects currently in the lead of the Vagina article clearly need referencing, no matter how they are formatted; if they did not, FloNight would not have removed them as unreferenced, especially since FloNight took part in the aforementioned WP:MOSMED references discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Although not an absolute requirement by MOSMED, using references in the lead of health related articles is all kinds of goodness. :-) The content is much more useful as a standalone overview if it is referenced. Plus in general, it is much easier to keep track of references if they are cited in close proximity to the content. (For everything from sorting out copyright violations to keeping content updated from the most current version of a reference.) So, I strongly encourage the use of references in health related articles that are being re-written to get them in tip top shape. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The lead: Initially describing the vagina, fertility, etc.

Snowmanradio, before you made this edit specifying "In humans," I was going to state the following: Regarding this, this, and this edit you made, how is it clearer for the readers if we state "The vagina is a fibromuscular tubular sex organ. It is part of the female genital tract, which extends from the exterior at the vaginal orifice and inwards through the vagina, the endocervical canal, the uterus, and finally the fallopian tubes." instead of "In humans, the vagina leads from the opening of the vulva to the uterus (womb), but the vaginal tract ends at the cervix."? Anatomy texts usually don't describe the vagina in the way that you have regarding its location; they are usually simple about its description, simply stating that it "leads from the opening of the vulva to the uterus (womb), but the vaginal tract ends at the cervix" or that it "extends from the cervix (or uterine cavity) to the vulva," or something similar to that. Another reason that your second line was overly specific, before you clarified "In humans," is because you were generalizing the vagina's makeup when the vagina's makeup is different in humans as compared to some other animals. That is why I had an "In humans" line, and a "The location and size of the vagina varies among species" line, so that readers know exactly which makeup we are referring to when we speak of humans. WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy states: "The lead should begin by stating in the most general form the location and purpose of the structure. For example, The metatarsals are bones found in the human foot." Clearly, it is more beneficial for readers to indicate the location and structure of the human vagina apart from vaginas of other animals.

And regarding your issue with mentioning fertility in the lead, as seen here, here, and here, I clearly disagree with excluding fertility from the lead when mentioning menstruation, having stated, "Regarding menstruation, the word 'usually' was in front of 'signals fertility.' Given the purpose of menstruation and that a person who has a menstrual cycle can usually become pregnant, that aspect should be mentioned." Menstruation in humans usually does signal the possibility of fertility, and that should be noted in the lead, in my opinion. Flyer22 (talk) 10:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

And to others watching this talk page, do consider weighing in so that we can resolve matters, such as ones noted in this section. Flyer22 (talk) 10:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not see the point of linking intermediate stages of the editing, which includes confusion of two people editing the introduction at the same time. I had two edit conflicts when I was improving the introduction. The introduction for the bases of discussion is this version. Snowman (talk) 10:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by confusion. I provided the links that I did above for reasons that are obvious, to me at least. And with this edit, you have removed the "In humans" bit and re-generalized the second sentence. If you did that simply because of my above post in this section, that is something that can be confusing. But people reading this section are surely smart enough to catch on. And, before you state that menstruation is not a reliable indicator of fertility since it happens at the part of the menstrual cycle that is not very fertile, I know that. But the point is that, in humans, menstruation indicates the possibility of fertility, as many WP:Reliable sources state. Flyer22 (talk) 10:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit conflicts make editing difficult. Two people editing the same section leads to confusion. There is no need to link intermediate stages of editing, as soon confusion has occurred. People can catch to the reasons why you link intermediate stages of editing and prior to a plateau of development appearing. Snowman (talk) 10:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

There are many factors important to fertility besides menstruation. In humans, menstruation occurs when fertilization has not happened. The relation between fertility and menstruation can not be easily summed up in one line for this summary. In some African tribes menstruation tends to occur several years before fertility. Also, fertility tends to decline during the decade (approx) prior to the menopause. Many infertile women have regular periods. Regular bleeding also occurs on the contraceptive pill. I think the situation is entirely different in animals; some animals are re-fertilized soon after delivery of a baby animal without a period happening. I would agree that menstruation occurs in some primates, but I recall that it is not common in mammals in general. Snowman (talk) 10:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I stand by what I stated in my "10:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)" post above. I am aware of WP:Edit conflicts, of course, and I see no issue in providing diff-links in my post above to point out our editing differences. Doing something like that is common practice, and is the point of diff-links. As for the rest, there is no denying the significance of fertility being associated with menstruation/the menstrual cycle, and many scholarly sources show that. Those "many factors" you note do not have the significance that the menstrual cycle has to fertility, considering that it is the menstrual cycle that facilitates fertility. And as for "In humans, menstruation occurs when fertilization has not happened.", it's a little more complicated than that since, for example, some women have become pregnant during menstruation because they don't have the typical number of days that are usually in a menstrual cycle, had vaginal intercourse on a day they were bleeding, began ovulating days afterward, and then ended up pregnant because of surviving sperm; sperm has a good survival rate. But the lead is not meant for going into all the details and exceptions; it is meant to summarize. And by mentioning menstruation/the menstrual cycle, we are speaking of humans, which you've already clarified in the lead. Also, the "In humans" aspect should be readded regarding the location of the vagina, per what I stated above. Flyer22 (talk) 11:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to revert this, you have gotten into specific details without first explaining what the vagina is. And starting off the first line by stating "The human vagina" is not good form, despite the Vagina article being mostly about the human vagina. Flyer22 (talk) 11:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that you revert too often. You could do better than reverting, because you could enhance text instead. Apart from that, You will need to correct your edit, because it implies that the vagina is the whole of the female reproductive tract. Snowman (talk) 11:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I have been overwriting your text, which is not necessarily reverting you (then again, there have been enough debates at the WP:Edit warring talk page about what a revert is or isn't). And you have been doing the same with my text. So if I revert too much, so do you. And, indeed, editors felt that you reverted too much at the Cervix article. I have been improving the text from your overly technical details, etc.; this, for example, flows better. As for the edit you think I need to correct, it states "that is part of the female genital tract." The difference between that and your wording is that your wording stated "is part of the female genital tract." Flyer22 (talk) 12:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

This is what you meant needed correcting? Flyer22 (talk) 12:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand your style a bit better now. I see that you revert and then embellish, which is not quite the same as outright reverting and leaving it as that. I have corrected your edit with this edit. I think that the introduction is getting better. For me, it is not about any particular intermediate stage. Of course, the introduction is still a work in progress, but I think that another plateau of development has been reached today. I look forward to working with you again, perhaps tomorrow. Snowman (talk) 12:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't always revert. Moving on, though, the "In humans, the female genital tract is a continuous passage that extends from the exterior at the vaginal orifice and inwards through the vagina, the endocervical canal, the uterus, and finally the fallopian tubes." part still seems too much to me. Per what I stated in my "10:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)" post above, I don't think that we need to go into all that detail for the lead. We should keep it focused on the vagina instead of the genital tract as a whole, which means we should go with the "leads from the opening of the vulva to the uterus (womb), but the vaginal tract ends at the cervix" or the "extends from the cervix (or uterine cavity) to the vulva" type of wording. Details can be addressed lower in the article. We need to keep the lead simpler than the rest of the article. Flyer22 (talk) 12:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Given that this article is "Vagina", I agree that detailed definition of the whole female genital tract should be avoided in the lead section. Axl ¤ 12:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Fine, I nearly did that early, but I wondered if anyone would object to it. Snowman (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Similarly, for an article on Vagina, perhaps fertility need not be included in the introduction. Snowman (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Similarly, for an article on Vagina, perhaps menstruation need not be included in such detail in the introduction. Snowman (talk) 12:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, I don't like it because you have again gone into too much detail in the first paragraph, before explaining the primary functions of the vagina. That orifice bit should stay in the second paragraph that goes into detail about the orifices. Humans are mammals, and so that second paragraph does not exclude humans. And I don't like this edit because it goes without giving a proper description of the location of the vagina in humans, which goes back to my "12:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)" post above. And as for menstruation/fertility being mentioned in the lead, you know that I disagree with removing that...per above. I reiterate "there is no denying the significance of fertility being associated with menstruation/the menstrual cycle, and many scholarly sources show that." There is not much in the lead about menstruation/fertility, and menstruation is a big function of the vagina; it happens before childbirth and for much longer in a woman's life, after all. Flyer22 (talk) 13:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

A mention of menstruation in the lead section is fine. However I don't think that there is any need for this sentence: "In healthy humans, cyclical menstruation tends to indicate a normal menstrual cycle and potential fertility." Axl ¤ 13:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Update: I have removed that sentence about menstruation and fertility. I do not see any need for fertility to be mentioned in this introduction. I have retained a mention of menstruation, but removed a basic description of what menstruation is. I have only retained essential basic information in the first paragraph moving the relation to the urethral opening to the second paragraph as suggested above. Snowman (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Menstruation results from a cyclical hormonal changes which have prominent effects on the endometrium. The main physiology and anatomy of menstruation are not in the vagina. Importantly, menses flow through the vagina, and I think that (or something similar) is all we need to say here. We already have that the vagina permits menstruation. Snowman (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I reverted, and then tweaked the matter, as seen here, here and here, including the "In humans" aspect I mentioned above regarding the location of the vagina. I cannot be convinced that all that you cut out about menstruation should not be in the lead. Axl didn't agree to all of that being cut. He agreed to the following line, which is the line you added, being cut: "In healthy humans, cyclical menstruation tends to indicate a normal menstrual cycle and potential fertility." Simply mentioning menstruation and not clarifying what it is about is insufficient. I also feel that not mentioning its relation to fertility is insufficient, so I have restored that, but I changed it to "and is often related to fertility," and I await more opinions on the fertility aspect. If others agree to remove "and is often related to fertility," then I will go along with that. I am leaning toward changing "often" to "commonly," however. I think that the genital orifice detail you removed should also be there, just not in the spot that you placed it in; so I moved it back to the second paragraph, and clarified it with "in humans" for the "protected by the labia" part. Flyer22 (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC) I struck out a part of this post because I just realized that you didn't remove the genital orifice bit. Flyer22 (talk) 02:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have become mixed up by your style of reverting and then putting things back. Why do you not just do some enhancements following previous edits, like most people do? Snowman (talk) 10:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Many editors revert when needed. I revert you when I think it's needed. As you know, I also enhance your text. Flyer22 (talk) 11:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

At some point, I might contact WP:Med and/or WP:Anatomy to weigh in on the lead and/or to help out with the article in general, since the matters of the article are currently only being worked out by three people (the two of us and Axl). The value of more opinions is why I asked those watching this talk page to consider weighing in; I appreciate that Axl is helping. Flyer22 (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I would appreciate additional erudite editors helping out, especially for the more complex parts of the main text. However, what we have been editing so far is basic stuff. Snowman (talk) 10:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Update: As seen with this edit, I removed the fertility aspect from the lead until, or if ever, that is addressed better below (in the Secretions section). I re-added mention of the menstrual cycle, which is another link that editors can click on to find out detail on fertility and menstruation. Because menstruation and the menstrual cycle are mentioned in the lead, I might forgo adding anything to the lead about fertility, despite the fact that the menstrual cycle is thoroughly connected to fertility and therefore childbirth. Flyer22 (talk) 02:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not fully understand your explanation of your update, because you added back the mention of fertility a few edits previously, as seen in your reverting here, and you report that you removed it a few edits later. Actually, I removed the mention of fertility, because User:Axl suggested this and I agreed with it, and then you reverted it. Please try to write updates that give a holistic summary of what has happened. Note that I have had to correct your text which appeared to say that the vagina extends to the cavity of the body of the uterus (which you called the uterine cavity for short). I think that you can trust me and User Axl that there is no need to mention fertility in the introduction. Snowman (talk) 10:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• "... , and also permits menstruation, which is the normal periodic discharge of blood and mucosal tissue from the lining of the uterus during the menstrual cycle.". I the introduction, think that this can be shortened to "... , and also permits menstruation.". Any comments? Snowman (talk) 10:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, I'm not sure what you are confused about. My comments above are clear. Above, I clearly stated that I restored the fertility part. Then I mentioned that I removed it, and I noted why I removed it. Did you skip over my comments before my Update post? Axl, who watches this article/talk page (and therefore does not need to be pinged to it via WP:Echo), did not agree to remove all mention of fertility from the lead; he agreed to remove the fertility sentence that you added, clearly because that sentence, unlike my mention of fertility, was excessive. Also, this edit regarding uterine cavity is not a correction. I rarely make mistakes on female anatomy topics. Some sources, such as this DC Dutta's Textbook of Gynecology source (page 4) that I've used lower in the Vagina article, use the word uterine cavity in place of the word uterus when stating where the vagina leads from. Should I point you to more WP:Reliable sources that state similarly? Other sources use the word cervix in place of uterus, or vice versa. Did you miss where I mentioned "uterine cavity" above and stated that we should keep the lead focused on the vagina instead of the genital tract as a whole, which means we should go with the "leads from the opening of the vulva to the uterus (womb), but the vaginal tract ends at the cervix" or the "extends from the cervix (or uterine cavity) to the vulva" type of wording? I go by what the WP:Reliable sources state when editing topics such as this, and they are not always consistent with aspects of female sex anatomy, since male sex anatomy has been studied far more than female sex anatomy has and there have not been as many researchers trying to obscure things about male sex anatomy as there have been trying to obscure things about female sex anatomy. For example, many sources state that the vagina is composed of three layers, but a lot of other sources state that it is composed four layers; I note both in the Vagina article. Per WP:Verifiability, "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." That's what I do. And if you are going to edit topics on female sex anatomy, you need to be well informed on the conflicting information out there about it, and what is commonly accepted among anatomists and scholars regarding, and what is not. I am. In this case, I agree to use the word uterus or cervix instead of uterine cavity since uterine cavity is not used as much as the other two in anatomy texts regarding where the vagina leads from (or "communicates with" in anatomical terminology; see definition 8). Therefore, I made this change in text lower in the article.

And, yes, we should be clear about whether or not we are referring to the human vagina when stating "the vagina extends from the vulva to the cervix," which is why I made this, this and this edit regarding your latest changes. And as for mentioning menstruation without mentioning what menstruation is, I won't be agreeing to that, given how much of a significant aspect menstruation is regarding the vagina and vaginal health, and given that the lead should summarize the article. Flyer22 (talk) 11:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Grays Anatomy and other anatomy books describe the uterine cavity, also called the cavity of the uterus and the cavity of the body of the uterus as the space in the uterus above the endocervical canal. Duttas books says that the vagina is communicating with the uterine cavity, which is not quite the same as saying that the vagina extends to the uterine cavity as you did. I would suggest that Duttas book is a little sloppy with his anatomical terminology here and that this part should not be transcribed to the wiki, because is not inline with dedicated anatomy books. Snowman (talk) 11:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

In my "11:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)" post above, I just added what "communicates" can mean in anatomical terminology; see definition 8. Like I stated with this edit, "Some sources state 'from the vulva to the uterus'; other sources state 'from the vulva to the cervix' or 'from the vulva to the uterine cavity.'" Perhaps when sources use the word uterine cavity in this case, it should not be taken so strictly, as to mean exactly extending from the uterine cavity. I did not take it as strictly as you did. Whatever the case, I already agreed above that it is better for this matter to use uterus or cervix. And I did indeed use cervix; the word uterine cavity was in parentheses to cover what other sources state. Flyer22 (talk) 11:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I see that by this edit, you've gone with uterus instead of cervix. I don't mind using either, but we should be consistent on the matter, so I changed the text lower in the article to match that.

Also, regarding sources for female sex anatomy, as good as Gray's Anatomy is, I tend to stay away from very old sources unless I'm perhaps noting historical matters, per what I stated above about female sex anatomy not being as well studied as male sex anatomy, and some aspects of female sex anatomy having been intentionally obscured by male anatomists and other scholars. So much of what anatomists and other scholars thought they knew about female sex anatomy has been proven inaccurate over the years (including the last 60 years) or incomplete. For example, very old sources describe the Bartholin's glands as the primary source for vaginal lubrication, when, these days, anatomists and other scholars are generally in agreement that it is plasma seepage from the vaginal walls that is primarily responsible for vaginal lubrication. And, of course, there is the Müllerian duct aspect we discussed in the #Genital vs. urogenital section above. Flyer22 (talk) 12:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

When sources state that the vagina communicates with the uterine cavity or extends from the vulva to the uterine cavity, I think they mean what this Maternity Nursing - Revised Reprint source (page 27), from Elsevier Health Sciences, states; it states, "The opening between the uterine cavity and the canal that connects the uterine cavity to the vagina (endocervical canal) is the internal os." I reiterate that I think we should stick with uterus or cervix for the "vagina extends from" or "leads from" matter. Flyer22 (talk) 13:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It is a bit verbose; nevertheless, the line that you quoted from the nursing book looks correct to me. The nursing book just gives an account of the normal anatomy of endocervical canal including what is at both ends of it. The line from Dutta's book, that we have been discussing above, looks sloppy to me. I know the anatomy, so I think I know what Dutta meant to say. If he meant "communicates directly", he seems to have wrote it as if the uterine cavity includes the endocervical canal, but this is not the case. I speculate that it could be tentatively mooted that he meant "communicates indirectly", but that leaves it open to misinterpretation of the sort that you did when you took it to mean that the vagina extends up to the uterine cavity. On a different issue that you commented above; Did you know that the editor-in-chief of the 39th and the 40th editions of Gray's Anatomy is a female professor of anatomy? Snowman (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• I am surprised that the out of copyright version of Gray's Anatomy is linked in the infobox of WP Anatomy articles, because on some topics it can be very much different to modern versions of Gray's Anatomy. Incidentally, I do not use old versions of Gray's Anatomy for writing Wiki articles; however, when the old version is similar, I might use the old version for discussion, because it is easy to link to. Snowman (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I didn't know that about the editor-in-chief; I do feel better about it that she's female, like I am, even if that sounds sexist. And I appreciate that you use the modern versions of Gray's Anatomy; I obviously much prefer that we use the newer versions for female sex anatomy than the older versions. And I agree that using the older versions is fine for an anatomy aspect that is the same as it was at the time that Gray's Anatomy was first published. Flyer22 (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Susan Standring who works at Kings College, London has edited the 39th edition (2005) and the 40th edition (2008) and I understand that she is working on the 41st edition of Gray's Anatomy. Snowman (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Good; I'll research her and get to know more about her. Also, regarding this bit you added to your post above -- "the vagina extends up to the uterine cavity" -- I used "extends from" wording and noted above that I did not interpret "extends from" as strictly as you did regarding the uterine cavity. There is various terminology in anatomy books that some might consider less accurate than other descriptions, but the sources mean or are trying to relay the same thing; for example, sources in anatomy books sometimes mean "pointing toward" or "meeting" when they use the word extends. Again, when I see the same wording or descriptions in different anatomical texts, I consider relaying that in addition to the different wording or different descriptions reporting the same thing. Flyer22 (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I just Googled her; yes, she is familiar to me, though I have not kept up with her as well as some others. Flyer22 (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

If I have understood your comment correctly, you are implying that "extends up to ..." is "less accurate" as you put it. Snowman (talk) 16:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• I would like User Flyer22 to reflect on the edit summary that she wrote here in which she said; "Snowmanradio, have you not read enough human female sex anatomy texts? Like I stated, in this case, some sources state "uterine cavity" instead of "uterus," but I will go with the latter as more common/clearer. See talk page." Any comments? Reading how many anatomy texts would be enough? Snowman (talk) 16:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding "extends up to," I was simply noting the actual wording that I used, which was "extends from." As for my comment that you've cited, I don't see the point. I relayed the following above: Like I stated with this edit, "Some sources state 'from the vulva to the uterus'; other sources state 'from the vulva to the cervix' or 'from the vulva to the uterine cavity.'" Perhaps when sources use the word uterine cavity in this case, it should not be taken so strictly, as to mean exactly extending from the uterine cavity. I did not take it as strictly as you did. Whatever the case, I already agreed above that it is better for this matter to use uterus or cervix. And I did indeed use cervix; the word uterine cavity was in parentheses to cover what other sources state. Flyer22 (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not know how to respond to this part of the edit summary; "Snowmanradio, have you not read enough human female sex anatomy texts?". Would you help me to understand your question? Snowman (talk) 16:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to it seeming that you never came across an anatomy book stating "from the vulva to the uterine cavity," or something similar to that, when describing the location of the vagina. And, yes, "extends up to" would be a "less accurate than other descriptions" matter when comparing various anatomy books to other anatomy books. Flyer22 (talk) 16:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Note that Dr Dutta's book is a gynecology book and it is called Textbook of Gynecology. Snowman (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

What is your point on the Textbook of Gynecology matter? Do you think that a gynecology textbook is less accurate for female sex anatomy than other anatomy text books? If so, I can't agree with that. Also, from looking over various anatomy books, I have come to the conclusion that some of them define uterine cavity more loosely than others do; the looser cases seem to equate uterine cavity with uterus, as in a general sense, almost like people commonly referring to the vulva as the vagina. Flyer22 (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

To answer your question with regard to the number of books that I have read or not read; I think that it would be an irrelevant number to being able spot text in the article that is "less accurate", misleading, or wrong, because the important thing is to understand the anatomy rather that to read many anatomy books and other textbooks. Of course, reading anatomy books is only one way of getting to understand anatomy. Snowman (talk) 17:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

My knowledge of anatomy, and especially of female anatomy, is not limited to anatomy books and other scholarly books, and certainly not "I read it online." But anatomy books and other scholarly books are what we should be primarily using to source anatomical content on Misplaced Pages; and like I stated, such sources are not always consistent with their descriptions of anatomy, and this is especially the case for female sex anatomy. Flyer22 (talk) 17:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

*sigh*

"Axl... did not agree to remove all mention of fertility from the lead; he agreed to remove the fertility sentence that you added, clearly because that sentence, unlike my mention of fertility, was excessive." Technically the first part of the sentence is correct. However the reasoning is not quite right. I do not think that fertility should be mentioned at all in the lead section. I am glad to see that the lead section does not currently mention it.

"And as for mentioning menstruation without mentioning what menstruation is, I won't be agreeing to that, given how much of a significant aspect menstruation is regarding the vagina and vaginal health, and given that the lead should summarize the article." I also think that menstruation should be defined in the lead section. However this is because "menstruation" is a technical term that many readers may be unfamiliar with. (I note that you aren't arguing for the inclusion of formal definitions of "sexual intercourse" and "childbirth".)

"Some sources, such as this DC Dutta's Textbook of Gynecology source (page 4) that I've used lower in the Vagina article, use the word uterine cavity in place of the word uterus when stating where the vagina leads from." Dutta states "The vagina is a fibromusculomembranous sheath communicating the uterine cavity with the exterior at the vulva." It does not imply that "uterine cavity" is a synonym for "uterus". Snowmanradio helpfully linked to "Uterine cavity" which shows that the uterine cavity is distinct/separate from (albeit in direct communication with) the cervical canal. Of course the cervix is part of the uterus, so I am happy with the current text: "In humans, the vagina extends from the vulva to the uterus."

"When sources state that the vagina communicates with the uterine cavity or extends from the vulva to the uterine cavity, I think they mean what this Maternity Nursing - Revised Reprint source (page 27)... states; it states, "The opening between the uterine cavity and the canal that connects the uterine cavity to the vagina (endocervical canal) is the internal os"." Maternity Nursing's statement is certainly accurate. However it is not clear to me that "sources state that the vagina... extends from the vulva to the uterine cavity." Dutta certainly does not state that.

Like Snowmanradio, I am dismayed by the ad hominem attack in this edit summary. (It's obvious to me that Snowmanradio actually knows a lot about this anatomy.) After some digging around, I found that the text changed in the edit was originally added by Flyer22. Axl ¤ 20:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Axl, it seems that I have upset and disappointed you. I regret that, especially since you have been supportive of my editing the Vagina article and other medical articles in the past. I also apologize to Snowmanradio for that edit summary; from his editing and interactions at the Cervix article, I figured that he is mostly familiar with anatomy by having read Gray's Anatomy, and perhaps has not expanded his knowledge of anatomical matters much beyond that. The #Genital vs. urogenital section above, where I noted/debated his use of urogenital to describe the vagina, and the scarce interchangeability of genital and urogenital, further gave me that impression. And regarding menstruation being explained in the lead, I figured that it would be Snowmanradio to state "I note that you aren't arguing for the inclusion of formal definitions of 'sexual intercourse' and 'childbirth.'" I think it's obvious why, as also noted by your explanation, that neither of those things need elaboration in the lead.

As for the term uterus vs. uterine cavity, I'll provide another take on that: About two years ago, through anatomy books that I own and especially anatomy books and anatomy journals online, I was heavily researching anatomical terms that are used interchangeably, whether correctly, incorrectly or somewhat misleadingly. I also talked with medical friends of mine about it. It's because of this type of research that I do every couple of years that I knew that it's generally best not to use the term urogenital for the vagina (well, that and because of many people thinking that the human vagina is partly for urination). Regarding this particular research two years ago, however, I wanted a refresher on some of those "correctly, incorrectly or somewhat misleadingly" aspects, more insight on others, and interchangeable matters that I would be best off avoiding. The vaginal and uterine topics were among those. I noticed a few texts stating that the words uterus and uterine cavity are sometimes used interchangeably, as though the uterine cavity is the uterus. One of those sources heavily criticized the usage. A different source, this one, Ultrasound: A Practical Approach to Clinical Problems, 2011, page 501, from Thieme Medical Publishers (which I remember because of its discussion of the terms uterine rupture and uterine dehiscence), notes that the terms uterine rupture and uterine dehiscence are used interchangeably, but also notes that the terms are distinct when one is strictly speaking of them. Another source was a Saunders source, but I can't remember the exact title of it. What I have taken away from such research is that, in some cases, we should relay the different wording/descriptions that sources use for anatomy, so that readers know what is actually meant if they read or heard it somewhere before. Above, for example, I noted that the vagina is described as having three layers in many sources, but as having four layers in many other sources. It therefore seems insufficient to only stick to one of those descriptions. In the case of uterus vs. uterine cavity, I agree that this was a poor choice on my part. I used the following wording: "The human vagina is an elastic muscular canal that extends from the cervix (or uterine cavity) to the vulva." I kept "uterine cavity" in parentheses because I did not consider it a standard description, and, like I noted above, was trying to cover any discrepancy between anatomical sources. I did not interpret "extends from" for "uterine cavity" as strictly as Snowmanradio did, but I should have thought better of using uterine cavity in the way that I did, especially since it is not standard for describing the length of the vagina. Yes, it is better to be as accurate as possible instead of worrying about what less-than-accurate anatomical wording an anatomical source used; if needed, such a matter can be explained in the Vagina article. Flyer22 (talk) 01:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22, thank you for the further explanation. Especially, thank you for apologizing to Snowmanradio for the edit summary. We can move forward and hopefully reach a consensus. :-) Axl ¤ 09:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Parous anatomy

The article currently says; "It is closed by the labia minora in female virgins and in females who have never given birth (nulliparae), but may be exposed in females who have given birth (parous females)." I am unclear what exactly being described for parous women in Dr Duttas book, how it arises, and how common it is. Snowman (talk) 19:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Until corroboration or explanation of this this anatomy in parous women is found, I suggest that it this content is removed from the article. Snowman (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Three/four layers

Three/four layers seems to be just an imaginary manifestation of different ways of describing the same thing that might be found in different books or perhaps simplification in some books. I think that we should see past this and just describe the structure as it is. This would enormously simplify the description on layers and avoid duplication. The layers of the vagina are currently described three times in the article, which is excessive, because there is no controversy about the layers of the vagina. There is no more to say about three or four layers than I have said here. Snowman (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not a matter of there being controversy regarding whether or not the vagina has three layers or four layers; I added both because, like I stated in the #The lead: Initially describing the vagina, fertility, etc. section above, and as is stated by the hidden note I added to the Layers, regions and histology section, "Sources differ when describing the number of vaginal layers; though three layers is the most common description, four layers are also sometimes described. Presenting both satisfies WP:Due weight, and takes care of any confusion presented to readers by discrepancies in the anatomical literature." And I reiterate that like WP:Verifiability states, "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view."

Can you imagine a person reading that the vagina has four layers in an anatomy book or online at a health site, and then coming to Misplaced Pages and reading that it only has three layers, and then being confused, not knowing which source to believe? I can. If we simplify that material to take away "duplication," we should at least note there, like I currently do, that "Three layers, sometimes categorized as four layers, compose the vaginal walls." But regarding removing supposed duplication, it's not actually duplication when sources are describing the vagina, in detail, as having three layers, and other sources are describing it, in detail, as having four layers. Including both makes for a more comprehensive article, in my opinion, and reduces confusion, not adds to confusion. Flyer22 (talk) 23:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, what do you mean by "The layers of the vagina are currently described three times in the article."? And if you are suggesting that we forgo mentioning any specific number for the layers of the vagina, I disagree with that, since mentioning the number of layers is standard when discussing them in anatomy texts. Flyer22 (talk) 23:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I really think that the article should be written with the main aim of helping readers to understand the structures rather than giving an account of different ways to describe the layers of the vagina given by different anatomy texts. Actually, the newer versions of Gray's Anatomy appear to describe the layers as being two layers, the exact expression used in Gray's is; "The vagina has an internal mucosa layer and an outer muscular layer". This is consistent in the later editions of Gray's; although, parts of the accompanying text have amendments from edition to edition. In slightly different ways, various later editions of Gray's describe outer connective tissue, that the urethra is incorporated in the outer connective tissue, the perennial body, and peritoneal covering where relevant. Snowman (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how naming how many layers there are, or are usually documented, is not writing the article "with the main aim of helping readers to understand the structures." The number of vaginal layers are included in anatomy books and other anatomical texts precisely to help people understand the vagina's anatomy; for example, which layer is the stratified squamous non-keratinized epithelium. The vagina is not usually described as having only two layers, so I don't think we should mention that. Flyer22 (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Gray's Anatomy, 40th edition, page 1281, does indeed state: "The vagina has an inner mucosal and an external muscular layer." (Ironically the sentence contains a syntax error.) However the textbook also subsequently states "The muscular layers are composed of smooth muscle and consist of a thick outer longitudinal and an inner circular layer." The statement implies that the muscle section comprises of two layers, not one. (The syntax error is repeated.) Later, Gray's Anatomy continues: "A layer of loose connective tissue, containing extensive vascular plexuses, surrounds the muscle layers." This clearly implies the adventitia.

With its sloppy terminology, Gray's Anatomy cannot be relied upon to define the individual layers of the vagina. Axl ¤ 12:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not here to justify what Gray's has said or not said. Nevertheless, I think that Gray's gives an unambiguous account of the structure of the wall, and I am not sure what is meant above by syntax errors in Gray's. If it is in a sort of note format, so what - some books are written in note format. Clearly, different books have different ways to describe the wall of the vagina and that is not surprising. Most of the descriptions across various books appear to be describing the same layers, but using different descriptive styles. The Wiki article need only describe it one way, as long as it is accurate. Incidentally, to me, the section in 40th Gray's implies that there is one muscle layer, because it goes on to say that the muscle layers are not distinct. I know exactly what Gray's means, in its description of the muscle layers, but I think that it could be confusing to some readers. See that Gray's describes the partial peritoneal covering where the pouch of Douglas descends at the back of the cervix and upper vagina - is the mesothelium another layer here? Usually, the histology is taught with practical experience at the microscope, so it would be useful to show a micrograph of the full thickness of the vaginal wall in the Wiki article. Perhaps, histology is an "art" at this level. Snowman (talk) 15:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I stand by what I stated above in this section regarding noting that the vagina has three layers, but is sometimes described as having four layers, whether we remove supposed duplication or not. And I still feel that the supposed duplication is best for our readers, per what I stated above. Perhaps others watching this talk page will weigh in on this matter instead of simply leaving us to deal with it? Either that, or I might need to specifically query WP:Anatomy and/or WP:Med to this section and the section organization debate below. Or start a WP:RfC for those matters. Flyer22 (talk) 22:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

You have used the words "described" above, which is different to the your invention of three or four layer classification or categorization seen in the article. The article implies that a four-layer classification is a distinct entity and the article even says; "A four-layer classification goes into greater detail: ...", which sounds like nonsense to me. The phrase in the article "Three layers, sometimes categorized as four layers, compose the vaginal walls" also suggests that there is a formal system of categorizing the layers of the vagina. There is no such entity as a "four-layer classification" nor formal ways of categorizing the layers. Snowman (talk) 23:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

As that section in the article shows, I used the word "sometimes categorized as four layers." Whether we the words described or categorized in this case hardly matters, since both are true. As shown by an abundance of WP:Reliable sources, seen here and here on Google Books, the vaginal walls are usually described/categorized as being composed of three layers or described/categorized as being composed of four layers; so a three or four-layer classification does indeed exist when it comes to noting the vaginal walls. And that is distinct. This source, for example, Pathology of the Vulva and Vagina, page 6, 2012, from Springer Science+Business Media, states: "Four layers are seen on histological examination of the vaginal wall." That source is currently in the Vagina article. We obviously don't have to use the "In the three-layer classification" or "A four-layer classification goes into greater detail" wording, and I have recently changed that, especially since the WP:Reliable sources don't state that, but being clear about the discrepancy is a must, in my opinion.

Again, there are WP:Reliable sources stating that the vagina has exactly three layers, while other WP:Reliable sources state that it has exactly four layers. These sources show that it is not an invention on my part. WP:Reliable sources are describing these layers in slightly different ways when they state that the vagina has three layers or that the vagina has four layers. And yet you want us to choose one or the other, state that it only has two layers, or forgo mentioning the number of layers at all? I cannot agree to that. Despite the number of hits that the Google Books search has for "The vagina has two layers" or "The vagina walls have two layers," as can be seen with those Google search results, the vagina walls are not usually described as being composed of only two layers; some of the sources in those search results state three or four layers compose the vaginal walls, just like specific searches for that terminology do. What the preponderance of WP:Reliable sources state on this matter is why I chose to note both in the article. The WP:Verifiability policy, which I linked to/noted above, is clear about what should be done in this case. I knew about the vaginal wall layer discrepancy because I am well-versed in the topic of female sex anatomy and do not stick to Gray's Anatomy for anatomy information, especially as far as female sex anatomy goes...considering the different information out there for it being far more inconsistent than anatomical information for male sex anatomy. Flyer22 (talk) 02:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

And I see that here, you alerted WP:Med to current matters at this talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 11:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

"When described as four layers, more detail is given for composition of the vaginal walls." I think that this is another unjustifiable construct that has somehow found its way into the Wiki article. I have seen some detailed descriptions in authoritative books by authors who have opted to describe the vagina in three layers, and I have seen some relatively short descriptions by authors who opted to describe the vagina in four layers. I would guess that the amount of detail provided has a positive correlation with the size of the book or the length of the relevant chapter. Snowman (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Going by the sources I have provided above, I see nothing unjustifiable about that construct. By "more detail," I mean that a four-layer description of the vagina is obviously a more detailed description of the vagina than a three-layer description is...by simply including an extra layer; this is despite whether or not some sources describe the three or four layers in short detail or in longer detail. But either way, wording can always be tweaked; for example, I could word it as "A four-layer description of the vagina may include the following:", which is similar to what I did before (as the Vagina article's edit history shows, I've changed the wording on this aspect more than once). For this "three or four layers" matter, I am going by the WP:Reliable sources far more than my personal opinion on what they mean. The sources I have provided above show that the four-layer descriptions are longer than the three-layer descriptions. Above, you stated, "authors who have opted to describe the vagina in three ." You are seemingly implying that it's simply a matter of an author asking, "Hmm, should I describe the vagina in three layers or in four layers?" That's not the case for a lot of these sources. A lot of these sources are clear that it's histological examination of the vagina that has shown three layers, or histological examination of the vagina that has shown four layers. And, again, the vagina walls are not usually noted as being composed of two layers. If this layers matter were so much of a choice for the authors, one would think that describing the vaginal walls as being composed of two layers would be more common than it is. Anyway, I've started a WP:RfC on this matter below, since others (except for Axl) watching this article/talk page are not weighing in on this matter and/or other things being discussed on this talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Blaustein page 154 has a very detailed description which is presented as three layers. Snowman (talk) 01:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

And that takes away from what I stated above, how, especially since I stated, "By 'more detail,' I mean that a four-layer description of the vagina is obviously a more detailed description of the vagina than a three-layer description is...by simply including an extra layer; this is despite whether or not some sources describe the three or four layers in short detail or in longer detail"? I am not seeing how your Blaustein source takes away from what I've stated above. Flyer22 (talk) 03:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

But, it is not as if a four-layer description includes an extra layer that is not featured in a three-layer description. Four-layer descriptions describe the epithelium and lamina proria as two separate layers. The three-layer descriptions describe these two layers and include them in one layer called the mucosa. Hence, the layer count may be different, but overall both three- and four-layer descriptions are both describing identical vaginal walls. Snowman (talk) 10:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

That WP:Reliable sources describe the number of vaginal layers differently is something that should be mentioned in the Vagina article, including that those layers are usually described as three or four layers, is what I am mainly arguing for regarding this aspect of the Vagina article, regardless of how much detail we include about the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 11:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Your source also states something interesting about subdivision: "Subdivision of the epithelium into layers is somewhat arbitrary but useful as it provides a basis for understanding the variable appearance of squamous cells in vaginal cytologic smears." Flyer22 (talk) 03:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course, the epithelium is only the thin layer of cells on the very inside of the wall of vagina. Snowman (talk) 10:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Not the point of the importance of subdivision. Flyer22 (talk) 11:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

If layers are seen, then layers can be described. Note that Blaustein does not give a count of the layers of the epithelium. Snowman (talk) 11:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

He does when commenting on the parabasal layer. And he does note a single layer aspect regarding the basal layer. Flyer22 (talk) 03:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

"I am not here to justify what Gray's has said or not said." You quoted Gray's Anatomy so I read the text.

"Nevertheless, I think that Gray's gives an unambiguous account of the structure of the wall." I strongly disagree.

"I am not sure what is meant above by syntax errors in Gray's." The issue is with the misuse of singular nouns when plural should be used. Consider the phrase "The vagina has an inner mucosal and an external muscular layer." The sentence does not describe a single layer as implied by the last word. The sentence could use the plural form—layers—but this would create ambiguity over the number of inner mucosal layers and external muscular layers. The sentence should be re-factored: perhaps "The vagina has an inner mucosal layer and an external muscular layer." Although there is repetition, it is now clear that two distinct layers are described.

"Incidentally, to me, the section in 40th Gray's implies that there is one muscle layer, because it goes on to say that the muscle layers are not distinct." Your statement is self-contradictory. The first part of the sentence describes "one muscle layer", but the latter part describes the plural "muscle layers". Gray's makes this same error. Axl ¤ 22:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should both three and four layers be mentioned as composing the vaginal walls?

This intricate RfC would normally need some careful assessment to close, but I'm pleased to see from the end of the discussion that the principal disputants participants have reached agreement and moved on. There is nothing for a closer to do. We might quibble whether a close is strictly necessary at all, but the discussion has appeared at WP:ANRFC, so in order to remove it from the backlog there, I shall say: Resolved.—S Marshall T/C 00:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

One opinion is that since many WP:Reliable sources, as seen here and here, describe the vaginal walls as being composed of three layers or four layers, we should mention both because presenting both satisfies WP:Verifiability (what it states about sources disagreeing with each other) and WP:Due weight, and takes care of any confusion presented to readers by discrepancies in the anatomical literature. This is regardless of how much detail we give both aspects. Another opinion is that the "hree/four layers seems to be just an imaginary manifestation of different ways of describing the same thing that might be found in different books or perhaps simplification in some books" and that "we should see past this and just describe the structure as it is," which "would enormously simplify the description on layers and avoid duplication." And, also, that the text should be "written with the main aim of helping readers to understand the structures rather than giving an account of different ways to describe the layers of the vagina given by different anatomy texts." A counterargument to this is that naming how many layers there are, or are usually documented, is writing the article "with the main aim of helping readers to understand the structures." The number of vaginal layers are included in anatomy books and other anatomical texts precisely to help people understand the vagina's anatomy; for example, which layer is the stratified squamous non-keratinized epithelium.

For how the section in the article currently looks, see here. And for the full discussion on this matter, see the section immediately above this one on the Vagina article talk page (I provided the link for those who are viewing this from the WP:RfC page). Flyer22 (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The only difference between descriptions of the vaginal wall in three and four layers is that the three-layer descriptions describe the mucosa as one layer and go on to describe the epithelium (stratified squamous) and the underlying connective tissue (lamina propria) as being part of the mucosa (which is correct), while the four-layer descriptions describe the epithelium and the underlying connective tissue as two separate layers (which is also correct - the two layers being part of the mucosa). I have looked at all the five sources that are currently used in the Wiki article to support text on the layers of the vagina and a few more as well. All the descriptions are describing exactly the same structures and there is no controversy about the structure of the layers of the vaginal wall. The exceptions to this are those sources that are wrong - for example, I recall seeing a source that omitted mention of the lamina propria. To me, Gray's Anatomy seems to be good in not mentioning any particular number of layers and just describing what is seen. I know exactly what to put in the Wiki article and how to write it, and I think that I would put a brief mention of different ways to describe the vaginal wall in a brief footnote. Snowman (talk) 01:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: Snowmanradio is the other point of view I noted above, and most of his points on this matter have already been extensively addressed above. Like I told him there, this is not about controversy; it's about WP:Reliable sources disagreeing with each other; they clearly do in this case, no matter that they are largely similar. For example, the three-layer classification describes the second layer as the muscle layer, while the four layer-classification describes the third layer as the muscle layer. Snowmanradio has been partly speculating as to what sources mean on this matter and is implying that authors are asking, "Hmm, should I describe the vagina in three layers or in four layers?" Again, that's not the case for a lot of these sources. A lot of these sources are clear that it's histological examination of the vagina that has shown three layers, or histological examination of the vagina that has shown four layers. For example, I noted above: This source, Pathology of the Vulva and Vagina, page 6, 2012, from Springer Science+Business Media, states: "Four layers are seen on histological examination of the vaginal wall." That source is currently in the Vagina article, and describes the layers somewhat differently than a three-layer classification does. Snowmanradio wants the layers described in a way that I do not see as beneficial to readers, or as completely accurate; for example, the problem with using Gray's Anatomy's simplified take on the vaginal walls has been noted by another editor above. Flyer22 (talk) 03:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Also see what Snowmanradio's Blaustein source (page 154) states about the importance of subdivision. Flyer22 (talk) 03:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: I've queried fellow medical editor Bluerasberry about weighing in on this matter. He commented on a "sources state differently" matter at the Domestic violence article talk page and was very helpful. Flyer22 (talk) 05:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• I have asked User:Casliber to have a look at User Flyer22's request for comment with a message on his talk page, partly because User Casliber showed an interest in editing the anatomy content of the cervix article earlier this year. Snowman (talk) 10:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I figured that you might ask him, since he is one of the editors who works well with you and doesn't clash with your editing style. Flyer22 (talk) 11:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that I would open somewhere with "The vagina has been described as having either three or four layers..", as it helps frame the section for the readers - (a) because it reflects how the layers are classified by many sources, and it is important to note the distinction. I also agree that it is not controversial but a matter of classification really, and (b) it helps frame the section for lay-readers. Without an overview, I worry a little that they will get a bit lost in following slab of text. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

As seen here, here, here and here, I rearranged, tweaked, and removed redundancy regarding the vaginal layers aspect. The section started out describing three layers, without literally stating that there are three layers, and, well, that was redundant to the other layers material. Flyer22 (talk) 02:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

And, of course, not all three-layer descriptions of the vagina are going to be the same; neither are all four-layer descriptions of the vagina. The point is that they will generally be the same, and to give an example of a three-layer and four-layer composition. Flyer22 (talk) 02:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah that looks better - wish there was a better word than "composition"...makes me thnk of Beethoven or something...but yeah. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I thought similarly about the word composition, but I knew that I didn't want to use the word categorized again for the first sentence. And I knew that I didn't want to use the words "commonly described as being" or "described as being" because those words didn't seem to flow as smoothly to me. I knew that I wanted the word commonly used to indicate that these are the two most common layer-descriptions for the vaginal wall (or "walls"; can't decide to go with singular or plural sometimes on this matter), and that I wanted to make the "composed" factor clear. I went with composition, and figured that readers would generally understand that the word composition refers to more than music. Anyway, as seen here (followup edit here) and here, I've tweaked it to "described as composing," so that, for now, it reads as: "Three or four layers are commonly described as composing the vaginal walls." Flyer22 (talk) 08:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

This is also discussed under the level two heading above of which this level three heading is a subsection. Under the level two heading above, I have explained that there is no need to repeat a description of the vaginal wall twice. Consider that no other anatomy text has two systems of explaining the layers (that I am aware of). Of course, a four layer description is not necessarily more detailed than a three layered description, but the article currently says that four layer descriptions are more detailed. The key difference between a three and a four layer description is that the epithelium and the lamina propria are described as two layers in the a four layer description while, in the three layer system they are also both described, but are counted as one layer (made up of two layers) named as the mucosa. Gray's anatomy does not give a layer count, however, Gray's does provide a logical description of the layers to convey an understanding of the layers of the vagina, and I think that style is effective. The difference between a typical three and a typical four layer description could be included, perhaps in a footnote or even briefly in the main text, probably after the description of the layers of the vagina, whatever style is used for the single description. Snowman (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course, three and four layer descriptions are also found for other organs, and the same difference in the count occurs where there is a mucosa. For example, see the esophagus at three layers here in the diagramme and as four layers here (quote "Structurally, the esophageal wall is composed of four layers: innermost mucosa, submucosa, muscularis propria, and adventitia. Unlike the remainder of the GI tract, the esophagus has no serosa."). I should explain that the esophagus does not have a serosa except in embryology. It was easy to find those examples for the oesophagus, I expect that more examples can probably be found for the urethra, bladder, ureter, fallopian tube, uterus, stomach, intestines (large and small), biliary tract, buccal mucosa, respiratory tract, and so on. What about providing an account of layer counts in the mucoa Wiki article, so that wikilinks can go to the Wiki mucosa page for people who want to know more about mucosa and layer counts. The oesophagus Wiki article has an uncounted description of the layers of the oesophagus, and what is wrong with that? I presume that readers of the oesophagus page will be able to understand the histology by being able to picture the layers in 3D, and will be prepared to understand other descriptions elsewhere without specific instruction or coaching. There was not any problems about using uncounted layers in the esophagus article, as far as I am aware. Why compare and contrast three and four layer descriptions in a lot of detail in the main text of the Wiki vagina article? Snowman (talk) 19:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I have objected to using Gray's Anatomy for describing the number of vaginal layers, and so has Axl. I will not change my mind on use of Gray's Anatomy in this case. You asked, "Why compare and contrast three and four layer descriptions in a lot of detail in the main text of the Wiki vagina article?" I already told you, in the main section above this one, "That WP:Reliable sources describe the number of vaginal layers differently is something that should be mentioned in the Vagina article, including that those layers are usually described as three or four layers, is what I am mainly arguing for regarding this aspect of the Vagina article, regardless of how much detail we include about the matter." I am not open to your footnote or Mucoa article proposals; I want this matter acknowledged in the main text, regardless of how much detail we include about it. Expecting readers to just know the deal on this matter is insufficient, for reasons I've already explained. I am tired of repeating myself on this topic, and this WP:RfC appears busted, perhaps because of WP:Too long, didn't read and/or because WP:RfCs these days are not usually significantly rich with comments. I didn't start this WP:RfC for you and me to continue our debate; a WP:RfC is mainly meant for outside opinions. But since this WP:RfC has already become WP:Too long, didn't read, how about you propose, here in this section, wording that you would use for the section to get across the point that the layers are numbered differently? Keep in mind that two editors thus far object to the simple two-layer description that Gray's Anatomy uses for the vaginal layers. Flyer22 (talk) 04:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• Gray's Anatomy has changed a lot over the last few editions, and I have some mixed feelings about the later versions; nevertheless, I have respect for it. I tend to prefer dedicated histology books for histology rather than Gray's Anatomy partly because there are more histology illustrations in histology books. Having said that, I would say that practical experience at the microscope is important to understanding histology. I would agree with User Axle that Gray's does not present a two-layer model. Hence, I think that Gray's Anatomy presents a descriptive model (without a layer count) and not a two-layer model. I generally prefer to alert people when I am discussing their comments, but I understand from User Flyer22 that User Axl is watching this page, so I will not link his name on this occasion. I do not know if User Axl has any views on his name been linked (so he gets an alert) or not. Snowman (talk) 11:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
• I would be willing to present how I would describe the histology of the wall of the vagina and compromise; however, I would think that it would be better to try to form a consensus on the science first. Snowman (talk) 13:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
• Dear User Flyer22, with regards to your comment made earlier today which included the line " And I already told you in the main section above this one, "a four-layer description of the vagina is obviously a more detailed description of the vagina than a three-layer description is...by simply including an extra layer; this is despite whether or not some sources describe the three or four layers in short detail or in longer detail."". It is a little difficult for me to explain; however, I think that it is for the best, that you should be aware that this is a mistaken view and it seems to be at the core of your presentation. Lets do a little practical work: take some three-layer descriptions and use the essence of them to draw a wall of a vagina, then take some four-layer descriptions and use the essence of them to draw a wall of another vagina. If you have understood what the descriptions are saying, then the two drawings will be the same. I have done this as a thought experiment while aided by an illustration of the wall of a vagina, and found the two descriptions are the same without actually doing the drawings. If you have any problems about doing this, then I might be able to link some illustrations or slides to guide you through it. Note that, in my view, reading histology slides is a step up from reading histology books. Snowman (talk) 13:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Snowmanradio, I don't see that the "obviously a more detailed description" line you quoted regarding me is a mistaken view. In some cases, we have different views on anatomical information, and certainly different views on how to present anatomical material. My style is obviously different than your style. Your style is also different than other WP:Anatomy editors' styles, as noted in the Section organization below. And in these cases, the most we can hope for is compromises. If we can't compromise, working together will not work. You've stated that you know the anatomy. I know the anatomy as well. If you stop assuming how much I know about anatomy and voicing that on the talk page, including the above implication that I must never look at histology slides, I will stop assuming how much you know about anatomy and voicing that on the talk page, including that I believe you mostly stick to Gray's Anatomy for anatomical information. I also don't see how it's difficult for you to present how you would include the aforementioned material about the discrepancy. It's easy, or fairly easy, to write up a version and post it here or in a WP:Sandbox. Flyer22 (talk) 02:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• (Lengthy) Comment I don't think that including this small discrepancy between sources is relevant or helpful to readers. An argument has been made that three layers and four layers must both be used to satisfy WP:Due weight, but the problem I see here is that there is no disagreement between the sources. All of the sources are technically correct. It's not a matter of one source having a different viewpoint from another on how many layers the vagina actually has, it's that some of them choose to count the mucosa as one layer while others instead count the mucosa's two sublayers: the epithelium and underlying connective tissue. It's not a question of the sources disagreeing with each other, it's about how much detail they chose to give on the layers, so I don't think that WP:Due weight applies. It would be helpful to have a picture like as this one (which is copyrighted) to help clear up any misconceptions from readers that have read elsewhere that the vagina has either three or four layers.

As the article stands, I found the two paragraphs to be confusing. Currently, one must read both paragraphs, then try to determine where and why the count of layers differs, because the article isn't explicitly clear about the discrepancy between the sources, or why the difference in counts is important. The reasoning behind having two largely redundant paragraphs makes sense after reading the lengthy discussion here, but that reasoning isn't made clear in the article, which leads to confusion.

The two paragraphs (one detailing three layers and another detailing four layers) should be merged for sure; I see no benefit to having two largely redundant paragraphs. I'm not sure that we need to mention that some sources count the mucosa as two layers when counting vaginal layers, except maybe as a footnote. It doesn't sound important enough to mention, given that there's no actual controversy.

I would propose something like:

"The inner layer of the vaginal canal is mucosa, which itself has two layers: a stratified squamous non-keratinized epithelium and an underlying lamina propria of connective tissue (a layer of connective tissue that is highly vascular under the base area lining the epithelium). The epithelium forms the folds or rugae and facilitate the vagina's ability to expand large enough for childbirth. The rugae are a series of ridges produced by folding of the wall of the outer third of the vagina; they are transverse epithelial ridges and their function is to provide the vagina with increased surface area for extension and stretching. Beneath the mucosa is the muscular layer, which is composed of smooth muscle fibers and situated longitudinally and circularly, and the final layer is the adventitia, which is a dense connective tissue that blends with the fascia surrounding the area. The adventitia is continuous with the other pelvic organs and is made up of blood and lymphatic vessels and fibers."

It probably still needs work though... I just quickly mashed the two paragraphs together, and removed the count info. I thought about adding the following at the start: "Three or four layers are described as composing the vaginal walls, depending on whether the source counts the mucosa as one layer, or instead counts the mucosa's sublayers (the epithium and lamina propria)." To me, that sounds extraneous, since most readers come here to learn about the subject, rather than about the irrelevant small editorial choices that various sources have made on the subject.

Hopefully that helped somewhat, rather than just adding to the confusion! kyledueck (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I would think that 80 to 90% of your version is usable. I am thinking about how to write your specific mention of expansion for childbirth, which would also involve hormonal preparation. Any comments? I think that the image that you linked is an oesophagus, but it has suitable labeling of the relevant layers. In due course, I am hoping to find a suitable illustration of the histology of a vaginal wall. For me, a footnote about "three or four layer descriptions" is optional, but in a compromise situation it may be possible to include a brief one. Snowman (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Kyledueck, you know that I always appreciate your take on matters. We have always worked well together on Misplaced Pages. As for the sources disagreeing, a discrepancy between the sources is a disagreement between sources. The word discrepancy is a synonym for "disagreement" (not always, but commonly). It seems that some of us look at the word disagreement differently in this case. On Misplaced Pages, disagreement between the sources does not have to mean that some sources are stating that the vaginal walls don't have four layers, and other sources are stating that the vaginal walls don't have three layers. The fact is that these sources present the vaginal layers differently, with some sources stating that histological evaluation shows three layers for the vaginal walls, while other sources state that histological evaluation shows four layers for the vaginal walls. That is why WP:Verifiability (what it states about WP:Reliable sources disagreeing) and WP:Due weight applies in this case. I am simply stating that I think we should acknowledge this discrepancy in the text; I've obviously already extensively gone over why above. I agree with significantly downsizing what I have included in the Vagina article on the matter. Your suggestion, including how you approached the discrepancy, works for me. On a side note: Since you are likely watching this talk page, I will no longer ping you to it via WP:Echo unless, of course, I feel that you perhaps are no longer watching it or might otherwise overlook something at it. Flyer22 (talk) 02:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that's nice to hear. :) I also appreciate how closely you follow the Misplaced Pages guidelines, your willingness to share your knowledge with others, and your tireless work here.

I do watch this page sometimes, but I also go for long periods without ever checking my watchlist, so ping away if you ever feel the need, and I'll help if I can. kyledueck (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Kyledueck. Do you mind going ahead and implementing your proposed changes? Flyer22 (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Alrighty, I've updated the article as discussed above. I made a few other changes as well after consulting the sources. There are still some additions that could be made to that paragraph (epithelial glucose and its affect on vaginal ph, absence of glands, effects of sexual stimulation on lamina propria (blood engorgement causing transudation of fluid resulting in vaginal lubrication)), but I'm too tired right now, so I'm off to do less productive things. kyledueck (talk) 01:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for going ahead and making the changes; however, that's not exactly what I agreed to. Remember, two editors above (me and Casliber) are for mentioning the three or four layers matter, while you and Snowmanradio are for omitting it. I agreed to your reduced text, with the following sentence included: "Three or four layers are described as composing the vaginal walls, depending on whether the source counts the mucosa as one layer, or instead counts the mucosa's sublayers (the epithium and lamina propria)." So I went ahead and made this change to your edit (followup edits here and here). As for the absence of glands part, that is covered lower in the article section at hand. Sexual stimulation matters should be covered in the Sexual activity section. And as for blood engorgement causing transudation of fluid resulting in vaginal lubrication, that is covered in the Secretions subsection of the Function section. And vaginal lubrication and other sexual effects are, of course, addressed in the Sexual activity section. Flyer22 (talk) 10:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if User:Casliber has seen the new version of text and User:Kyledueck's analysis in his lengthy comment above. A simple paragraph organization could go something like; "The wall of the vagina from the lumen outwards consist of a lining of "this", then a layer of "this", then a layer of "this" and finally there is an outer covering of "this"." (I am not sure if User Casliber is watching this page or not, so I have linked his name to alert him that his opinions are being discussed or quoted). Snowman (talk) 12:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that Casliber is watching this article/talk page; I assumed he was watching it even before you asked him to weigh in on this WP:RfC. I don't see anything to worry over regarding the current paragraph, which takes care of every editors' concerns expressed above, or a need to simplify the material any further. Remember what I stated above about compromising (my "02:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)" post). The text is the way it is for discrepancy issues, accuracy issues and detail issues. I really don't see any need to keep debating this. As a side issue: I'm noting here that Snowmanradio removed the hidden note; I am fine with that removal. Flyer22 (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Something like this; "The walls of the vagina from the lumen outwards consists of a mucosa of stratified squamous epithelium with underlying vascular connective tissue, a layer of smooth muscle with bundles of circular fibers internal to longitudinal fibers, and an outer layer of connective tissue called adventitia."'. Snowman (talk) 12:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference Konar was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. ^ Wylie, Linda (2005). Essential Anatomy and Physiology in Maternity Care. Elsevier Health Sciences. pp. 157–158. ISBN 0-443-10041-1. Retrieved 19 February 2014.
3. Young, B, ed. (2006). Wheater's Functional Histology: A Text and Colour Atlas (5th ed.). Elsevier. p. 377. ISBN 978-0443068508.

If you want the layers described only like that, without the brief mention of the three or four layers discrepancy, what is non-keratinized, where these layers are and what they do, I won't agree to it. Flyer22 (talk) 12:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I should add that I put a simple description above to illustrate that describing the wall from the lumen outwards is a simple way to orientate the reader. The current description in the article is generally appropriate, except that it is a little difficult to read and external can be misunderstood to mean an outer layer and not a lining layer. I am sure that several enhancements can be made to my simple description. I am anticipating that the details of the epithelial cells will be added under this. I am not commenting on including different ways of describing the vaginal wall here. Snowman (talk) 13:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Snowman, do you mean that you want to replace a sentence with your proposed text, rather than replace the whole paragraph? As in, change the sentence beginning with "The external layer of the vaginal canal is mucosa, which itself has two layers..." to "The walls of the vagina from the lumen outwards consists of a mucosa...", then leave the remaining paragraph text (including the sentence on differing counts of layers in various sources) mostly as is? If so, I think that would be an improvement over what's currently there. kyledueck (talk) 14:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The existing line about the adventitia being thin and dense is good. Yes, leave in the various ways of describing the vaginal wall at this juncture? We are awaiting to see what User:Casliber thinks of the progress that we have made. If including different ways of describing the vaginal wall, is not going to be put in a footnote nor deleted, then I think that it would flow better after an uncounted description of the layers, because the reader will be more prepared and will have just being introduced to the nomenclature and will have hopefully incorporated a 3D picture of the vaginal wall in his or her mind map. Something like this could follow an uncounted description in the article; "There are other ways of describing or listing the layers of the vaginal wall; sometimes the mucosa is described as one layer and sometimes its two sub-layers (epithelium and lamina propria) are accounted separately as two layers. Hence, three- and four-layer accounts of the vaginal wall both describe the same structures." Snowman (talk) 14:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It makes more sense to me to begin by noting the discrepancy; that is an adequate topic sentence. These layers are most commonly described in three or four layers, and that, in my opinion, is what we should state when noting the discrepancy, but in the way that the article currently states thanks to Kyledueck's wording. Your proposed wording is, in my opinion, unnecessary...and too wordy regarding the discrepancy. I don't see how it is easier reading. Flyer22 (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that " Hence, three- and four-layer accounts of the vaginal wall both describe the same structures" is unneeded as we are obviously talking about the same structures. I am getting lost in the walls of text here too - it's getting hard to follow. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe. I nearly deleted that bit before I saved it. Snowman (talk) 22:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

For clarification, I still prefer that the walls are the vagina are described once and I think that there is no need to provide an account of different ways to describe the vaginal walls. I think that it would be helpful to explain that vaginal mucosa consists of the stratified squamous epithelium and the underlying vascular connective tissue (lamina propria). Snowman (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Once again, my mind won't be changing on the "three or four layers" matter, and, in my opinion, a good compromise has resulted; I want to stick with that. Flyer22 (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Section break

Quite a lengthy discussion with many, err... layers to it ;-) I think that the current state doesn't read very well to uninformed people. It's more like a discussion than an clear explanation. How about first describing the layers, such as in the example Snowman wrote above, and then, after the layers have been described, make a remark about how different books count different layers. I think that's worthwhile explaining because one reason for people to look up vagina in an encyclopedia could be because they read about "the three layers of the vagina wall" and wonder which layers. Just to be clear, i don't propose adding or removing any content, as it was quite a labor (pun intended) to reach a consensus, just that we start by sketching the layers before going into a more academic discussion about how to count them. PizzaMan (♨♨) 00:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Only here late and only here at all because of the RFC. This is an example of what a mess results when some people don't stop to think what the reader needs and what the essentials to be described amount to. Someone describes the subject as three-layered, right? Whoops, wait; someone else said four, right? So one must be right and one must be wrong? And we must only mention the one who is right? DO us a favour!!! If a fair number of authorities say three and others say four, then as someone said (Snowman?) Three or four layers are described as composing the vaginal walls, depending on whether the source counts... If it is important in the rest of the discussion one might discuss what the respective sources had counted, for perspective at least, otherwise enough already. To omit mention would be irresponsible; some reader might be looking up that exact point, but to suggest that there is only one right way of looking at it and that that right way is only as three layers or four layers, rather than one layer or six, is nutty. Pizzaman gently suggests that we start by sketching the layers before going into a more academic discussion about how to count them, but I suggest that it wouldn't make much sense to draw what we cannot yet define. What we do have to do is to describe the organ. So we say something like: "X described three layers as SDFG which lies outside LKJH and IUYT, which lies... ... ... Y however, argued that especially in pregnancy, the outer part of SDFG constitutes a visibly distinct layer that...". We do that as constructively, clearly and succinctly as we can, and we supplement it with one or more suitably annotated illustrations if available. In short, if citeworthy sources differ we show what we can, as helpfully as we can, including whatever perspective we can offer. If not, we show a digest of what is offered, but bear in mind that the prime objective is that the intelligently interested reader leaves with a functional idea of what is clear concerning the organ, and of what is arguable. What anyone else thinks is beyond our power to do anything useful about. JonRichfield (talk) 07:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
• Incidentally the current, rather good, photo of the vulva in this article is poorly labelled (eg one "labia", and in any case with English labels). I am tempted to edit it to numerical or single-letter labels and put the legend into the description of the picture so that it is easier to edit and so that articles in other languages can easily use the photo. Any reactions? JonRichfield (talk) 07:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey, PizzaMan and JonRichfield. I appreciate you weighing in. I won't ping you to this discussion after this because I assume that you will check back here if you want to read replies. I am familiar with PizzaMan from this discussion at the Emily Kinney talk page; I take it that you followed me here from there, PizzaMan? And I am familiar with JonRichfield from other anatomy sex topics -- Vulva, Penis and Human penis. I don't understand how the current version of the Vagina article regarding the "three or four layers" aspect of the vaginal walls "doesn't read very well to uninformed people," PizzaMan; what the current version does is state "Three or four layers are described as composing the vaginal walls, depending on whether the source counts the mucosa as one layer, or instead counts the mucosa's sublayers (the epithelium and lamina propria)," and then goes into explaining the layers. Uninformed people won't understand this material much anyway. How will it help to note the "three or four layers" aspect after we explain the layers? Keep in mind what I and others have stated above. And, JonRichfield, regarding your query about what Snowmanradio stated, it has been me who has been arguing that we should mention the three or four layers aspect; Snowmanradio has been against mentioning it. As for your query about the image, feel free. Flyer22 (talk) 15:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, i don't recall how i ended up here, but it probably had to do with you. Then again, i'm a health care professional, so it's not really a coincidence. Anyway, in my opinion the part would read better if the layers were first introduced and only then going into a discussion about the difference between how a 3-layer or a 4-layer system tag them. Something like this:

The walls of the vagina from the inside outwards are a mucosa of non-keratinized stratified squamous epithelium with an underlying lamina propria of connective tissue, secondly a layer of smooth muscle with bundles of circular fibers on the inside and longitudinal fibers on the outside and thirdly an outer layer of connective tissue called (tunica) adventitia. Some sources distinguish four layers by counting both the mucosa's epithelium and lamina propria sublayers.

i put the non-keratinized in front of stratified squamous epithelium, because SSE is a common term. I also added tunica because i like it ;-) (actually because adventitia just means "outer" so leaving out the layer noun isn't very elegant imho). And maybe i'm trying to make it too layman friendly, but why not call the lumen the inside? @JonRichfield there is already a picture with numbers since the line points to a single labium, i agree it should either say labium minora or point to both. I have no preference.PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

OK folks, particularly @Flyer22 and @PizzaMan and presumably @Snowmanradio, firstly my apologies for apparently mixing up sources and intentions. Put that down to weakness or want of sense, but absolve me of bad intent!. Secondly, with that point settled, I don't think I have more to offer than the excessive paragraph I already have inflicted too hurrieldy to condense or clarify it. Thirdly, thanks for the lead to the numbered version; that will save a bit of PT. I'll have a go. Thanks and cheers! JonRichfield (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

PizzaMan, I can be fine with your proposal, but I think that, like the article already states, we should state "sublayers" instead of "separate layers." As for "non-keratinized stratified squamous epithelium," I agree with that use and have changed the text to that. I think that the reason Kyledueck might have placed "non-keratinized" after "stratified squamous epithelium" is so that it's clear that "keratinized" is a separate link and is not a part of the stratified squamous epithelium link. That is, if there was any thought on Kyledueck's part regarding that. Unless I'm remembering incorrectly, there used to be (or still is) something in the WP:Manual of Style or its subpage about linking concerning linking terms in a way that makes it seem as though the terms are one link. As for layterms, I am fine with using those, as long as we also clarify the technical terms when it makes sense to do so; so, for example, use the technical term and place the layterm in parentheses.

JonRichfield, no problem; you confused Snowmanradio's view, but I don't see where you mixed up sources. And, again, I appreciate that you weighed in. Flyer22 (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

For convenience, i changed it to sublayers in the italic proposal above, i hope this is what you meant. Let's let the discussion stand a little while so anyone can object.PizzaMan (♨♨) 10:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I have been busy, but I have kept up-to-date with the discussion on my smartphone. I have a brief time at my computer today for a little editing. I would say that there has not been a consensus in this discussion before, so I would regard anything on this topic that has appeared on the main page as in intermediate or temporary version. I think that there is no need to mention three of four layers at all. A modern Gray's Anatomy just describes the wall without doing any counting, so why not do it that way? The only thing I would say to acknowledge differences in counting layers is to say that the mucosa consists of the epithelium and a lamina propria. After that, for me, the least worst option is to mention three of four layers after the description the walls of the vagina briefly. Perhaps, a diagram or micrograph of the full thickness of the vaginal wall will assist readers. Incidentally, the vaginal wall also has part peritoneal covering in relation to the pouch of Douglas. I hope to return to this discussion after a few weeks when I have more time; however, it seems to me that a consensus is very likely to be achieved in the near future while I am away. Snowman (talk) 13:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

There is WP:Consensus (based not only on the number of supportive comments, but on the strength of the arguments) in this discussion to mention the "three or four layers" aspect; JonRichfield is the latest editor to agree with me on mentioning it. So far, you are the only one protesting against it. And you keep mentioning the Gray's Anatomy description, even though Axl has sufficiently explained why the Gray's Anatomy description is not ideal. I and others above have explained why the "three or four layers" aspect should be mentioned. I told you that I won't be changing my mind on that. And feeling that it should be mentioned has nothing to do with not understanding the anatomy, as you seem to repeatedly imply. I have compromised with you enough on this topic. Compromising does not mean fully getting one's way; nor does it mean a temporary solution in this case. I won't be repeating myself on this topic anymore; how I feel about it is made explicitly clear above. Flyer22 (talk) 13:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and boldly made the edit. While editing i felt i could do much better, so my apologies for not sticking to what i wrote above. To be honest, i'm actually pretty pleased with how i formulated it. I hope everyone agrees this is an improvement. As to numbering the layers, many books do, so Snowmanradio, please just consider it a service to our readers. Misplaced Pages should provide an answer to the question "what are the three/four layers of the vaginal wall". Note that, as far as i'm concerned, it would be an option to leave out the whole four layers sentence. The books in my bookshelf define three layers, which i think is the proper way. On a sidenote, does the muscularis layer not contain blood vessels? Kind of surprises me.PizzaMan (♨♨) 17:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I changed it to what you and I agreed on, but with minor changes. To me, this version (what I changed it to is cleaner and reads easier). For one, per everything I've stated above on the matter, I don't think we should begin the paragraph by naming exactly three layers. For two, I'm not a fan of single-sentence paragraphs; see MOS:Paragraphs. For three, I think this all fits well in one paragraph. Flyer22 (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

And as you can see here, Kyledueck altered your use of "inside" to "lumen." Flyer22 (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

You also reverted all the corrections i made to histological and grammatical flaws that the rest of the section had and removed the additions i made. I'm not going to point out all the flaws you reintroduced or argue about them. I based the structure of how i wrote it (starting with one simple sentence about the layers before going into details) on several well written books in my bookshelf. But since my attempt to interject my expertise isn't appreciated, i'm done investing time in this article. Have fun with it. For the record this is the version i wrote, the rugae section still needed improvement:

The wall of the vagina consists of three layers: the outer adventitia, the muscularis and the inner mucosa. Some sources distinguish four layers by counting both the mucosa's sublayers. The adventitia is a dense connective tissue that blends with the fascia surrounding the area, and contains blood vessels, lymphatic vessels and nerve fibers. The muscularis layer consists of inner bundles of circular smooth muscle fibers and outer bundles of longitudinal fibers. The mucosa layer consists of non-keratinized stratified squamous epithelium with an underlying lamina propria of connective tissue. The lamina propria is rich in blood vessels and lymphatic channels. It contains dendritic cells, which can function as antigen presenting cells, providing a route of transmission for HIV.

The epithelium is highly distensible and organised in folds or rugae to facilitate the vagina's ability to expand extensively for childbirth. The rugae are a series of ridges produced by folding of the wall of the outer third of the vagina; they are transverse epithelial ridges and their function is to provide the vagina with increased surface area for extension and stretching.

PizzaMan (♨♨) 08:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I am happy with describing the walls as three or four layers as long it is not confused by describing both three and four layers. Describing the vagina as three layers is fine by me. I think that User:PizzaMan's version above is an excellent guide which will be useful and understandable for all interested readers. Two questions: Are the rugae more marked in the lower half of the vagina with some present in the upper half of the vagina or only present in the lower half? (see one of the diagrams of the page which shows rugae in the upper half of the vagaia). Do you need to mention some oblique muscles between the longitudinal and circular layers of muscle? (this could be a footnote). Referring to a remark on blood vessels earlier up the page, I have not got time to look at some slides for the presence of blood vessels in the muscles layers, but I would anticipate that small blood vessels will be present. I hope to return to editing more regularly after about three or four weeks. Snowman (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

As this part is the histology section, including cell types looks fine to me, but it may be better not mention HIV transmission here leaving it to be described in more detail in a clinical section possible on a linked Wiki page. The word "transmission" here could be interpreted to me transmission from the female to the male, from the male to female, or both. I understand that it is easier for a woman to catch aids from a man than a man from a woman. Snowman (talk) 10:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

PizzaMan, reverting you does not mean that you are not appreciated here. I reverted simply for the reasons I stated above, which is that I feel that it is cleaner and because it is the text you and I had agreed on. Now I see that your version removed any mention of four layers, despite the fact that many reliable sources define the layers that way, and the valid reasoning given above for mentioning this discrepancy in anatomical literature. Editors in this discussion have disagreed on wording aspects, so we should at least be in agreement on them or have made an adequate compromise on them. You were not clear about any of your edits in your edit summaries; in fact, you didn't use edit summaries. I figured that you had simply structured the section based on your personal preferences (which is how you made it seem in your "17:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)" post above), especially given that the terminology can be different based on whatever reliable book or other reliable anatomy text it is. What you refer to as errors can simply be the book's way of wording things differently than you do. Snowmanradio and I have compared books on this talk page, books that word things differently than we would. And, Axl, for example, finds the modern Gray's Anatomy book regarding the vaginal walls flawed. Additionally, as noted above, where you prefer to state "inside," Kyledueck prefers to state "lumen." You referred to the "several well written books in bookshelf." Mind listing the names of those books, and the page numbers in question, and directly using them as sources in this article? If we are going to word things differently than the sources do for the section in question, then that wording should be supported by the sources. I have various well-written books on my bookshelf regarding anatomy, especially female sex anatomy, and I can list some of those here. But as Snowmanradio has noted, histology slides can also be helpful; anatomy books are not the only place to get anatomy information. It is especially helpful if a person has had hands-on experience with anatomical-based dissection, as I have, and I don't mean middle or high school dissection. Yes, it would be good to list here in this discussion what you think are errors so that we can compare what you state to what the different reliable book sources state. And I agree with Snowmanradio that it is best not to mention HIV transmission in the section in question. That is best left for the Diseases subsection of the Clinical significance section. Flyer22 (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind response. I agree with using lumen and leaving out HIV in the anatomy section. The book that describes the anatomy the clearest is imho Marieb, because it combines anatomy, physiology and histology in one holistic explanation. I only have an older fourth edition, so i doubt it's cool to cite that, but page 1050-1051. The improvements that i would propose over the current version: PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• it's better for readability imho to start with a very simple sentence that just names the three layers, without immediately going into all kinds of details such as sublayers. PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Not sure, because this might be too simple. Snowman (talk) 13:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• the next logical step is to go through all the layers once in more detail. Currently the first sentence is so long that it's a half attempt to already go into all kinds of details, so the section kind of goes through the layers twice PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

It may be better to describe the layers once in adequate detail. Snowman (talk) 13:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• i find it to flow better to mention the rugae after explaining the layers. It's also a more logical order of explaining things from the ground up PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Snowman (talk) 13:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• epithelium is singular, facilitate plural. Or should it say "the epithelium forms folds or rugae THAT facilitate the vagina's ability to expand" ("that" in stead of "and") PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The mucosa forms folds, because the rugae include the epithelium and the lamina propria. Snowman (talk) 13:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• the "or rugae" should be between commas. Now the sentence could be interpreted that the epithelium forms folds in one place and rugae in a different place (or in a different women). (i previously missed that one) PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

If you are confused about the grammar then a person whose first language is English will be able to correct any minor readability problems. Snowman (talk) 13:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• That sentence about rugae now doesn't emphasize how the vaginal wall is extremely distensible compared to other tissues, just that it can let a child pass and then lets the reader do the math. PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I would think that hormonal preparation leading up childbirth also extensively modifies the vagina, so perhaps your point is a bit of a red herring or a little out of context. The rugae are transverse, so the extensibility is logically on the longitudinal direction only. Snowman (talk) 13:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• i don't understand how the rugae are caused by folding of the "outer third". What third? Third layer? And isn't it the inner layer(s) that fold? This sentence is incomprehensible to someone who doesn't already know the anatomy. PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The rugae are more pronounced in the superficial third of the vagina (the third nearest to the vaginal opening). Snowman (talk) 13:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• i had added the point that not only the rugae, but also the distensibility of the epithelium itself contribute to expansion for allowing a baby to pass the vagina (ref: Marieb 4e, p1050 if it's not mentioned in the other refs) PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course, but this may need hormonal preparation. Snowman (talk) 13:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• can you explain the difference between the base area and the lamina propria to me? I was taught histology in a different language, so i'm not very familiar with the english terms, but to me they're both non-cellular layers. The WP articles on them don't describe the relationship between the two either. Anyway, i left out these layers (which i presume aren't cell layers), because after naming and numbering the layers, introducing new stowaway layers is confusing. PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I presume that you mean the "basement membrane" and the "lamina propria". The basement membrane is a complex structure or matrix under EM. Under LM is is a thin line just visible between the epithelium and the lamina propria. The lamaia propria is the connective tissue layer between the epithelium and the muscle layer. Snowman (talk) 13:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• You must have missed it, but the second sentence of my edited version was all about the four layer denomination. PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

A four layer description is not needed if the three layer description is given first. The two are the same, but the layers are described differently. Snowman (talk) 13:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• like i said, tunica or (tunica) should be added to adventitia, because adventitia just means "outer" so leaving out the layer noun isn't very elegant for anyone who actually understands what it means. PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Could mention both adventitia and tunica, but I think that adventitia is the conventional word, so it should take priority. Snowman (talk) 13:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd estimate this is about 2/3 of what i came across when rewriting. Perhaps i should have listed every motivation for every change separately while editing. I didn't go through all the books i previously used again for this list, just Marieb. I'll leave it to you: we could either replace the current version with my version with suggested improvements, or inject some of the improvements in this list in the article (insofar as you agree with them), with the risk of losing a few minor motivations for improvements that i couldn't recollect. (Edit: changed the tone because it could come across unkind) PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I would be interested to know what is your first language. Also, what language is Marieb in? Snowman (talk) 13:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm Dutch. Marieb is English. When I learnt anatomy it was mostly in Dutch, but I preferred Marieb because I just found it better written. But for histology I did have to use a Dutch book. PizzaMan (♨♨) 22:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC) Oh and like i said, i'm not going to invest more time in this article. I'm not going to argue about each point i listed. Feel free to do with my advise as you want. PizzaMan (♨♨) 20:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response, PizzaMan; as you might have already seen, I did note here that I would reply again at a later date. What Marieb anatomy book are you referring to? One by Elaine Nicpon (N.) Marieb? What's the exact title of the book? As for the age of the book, anatomy matters usually remain the same (except for new discoveries), and so older anatomy books are usually fine to use (though I prefer not to use very old ones, and generally stick to using ones within the last ten or so years). I've stated on this talk page before, though, that sources are not always consistent with aspects of female sex anatomy, since male sex anatomy has been studied far more than female sex anatomy has and there have not been as many researchers trying to obscure things about male sex anatomy as there have been trying to obscure things about female sex anatomy. So I definitely generally stick to newer sources for female sex anatomy.

You stated above that you think it's best if we "start with a very simple sentence that just names the three layers, without immediately going into all kinds of details such as sublayers.", but I don't see why that is best. And Snowmanradio above stated on that proposal, "Not sure, because this might be too simple." You also stated, "the next logical step is to go through all the layers once in more detail. Currently the first sentence is so long that it's a half attempt to already go into all kinds of details, so the section kind of goes through the layers twice." Snowmanradio above stated on that proposal, "It may be better to describe the layers once in adequate detail." Regarding how the section was prior to your commenting on this talk page and how it is now (I do think that setup is an improvement thanks to you), I don't see any problem with simply noting the structural components, and then going into detail about them...which is what the section currently does. This is also what some of the anatomy books in that section do. It's not so much of a "go through the layers twice" matter. It's noting them, that they may be presented differently depending on the source, and then explaining them. I don't see the first sentence as "so long," but it can obviously be broken up. Flyer22 (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem, i just broke my record by responding to an almost ten year old question on a Dutch talk page ;-) Yes it's called "Human anatomy & physiology, fourth edition" by Elaine N. Marieb, ISBN 0-201-52263-2. And indeed, in anatomy there's no reason to discard older books. Only reason to use the very old ones is because they're out of copyright. Your point about some people trying to obscure our understanding of female genital anatomy is very interesting, and should imho be mentioned in the article if we can find a reference about it.

The section has been improved lately, but i still think it needs some work. Some of that is personal preference, such as going into micro-anatomy before starting about the rugae. And i still think that introducing the non-cellular layers as extra layers that suddenly pop up is confusing and should be done clearer or, even better, not at all, because it's not very relevant to go into every non-cellular layer and if we would there are more non-cellular layers to consider. I also still think that the distensibility of the epithelium should be mentioned as a second mechanism to facilitate stretching for childbirth and that the two sentences about the rugae seem to contain some double information and are confusing. In short, i still think that the version i wrote was better, to be honest. But hey, i'm just repeating myself here. I made one small edit about the adventitia, because that was really just incorrect. For the rest i'm leaving it up to you. But whatever happens in this talk page, let's all please not talk about red herrings in here ;-p PizzaMan (♨♨) 22:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding this recent edit you made concerning tunica and adventitia, you are referring to a recent edit I made. I see that at "18:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)" and "13:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)" above, you and Snowmanradio disagreed on how to present that information. I think this particular topic (tunica adventitia) is also a matter of how sources differ on presentation. Like Snowmanradio noted above, it's common to simply state "adventitia." But I can see why you think we should state "tunica adventitia." As for red herrings, you're referring to what Snowmanradio stated in his "30 November 2014 (UTC)" post about one of your suggestions above. I agree with you that we should cease that type of talk. I don't think that Snowmanradio was trying to be unpleasant to you, but I can see how that comment gave you an unpleasant feeling. Flyer22 (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It's just that leaving out the noun (tunica) and just using the adjective (adventitia) is sloppy use of the latin language and illogical for people who understand the actual meaning of the words. You wouldn't call it the "outer" in english, but the "outer layer". The red herring bit was an (obviously failed) attempt at humor. Like i said, i'm not going to argue about each point i made about the current version. I injected what expertise i could bring to the table and i'll leave it up to the other editors like you whether there's useful points in there. I've already had my share of lengthy debates recently. PizzaMan (♨♨) 11:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

User PizzaMan may be correct with the Latin, but he is mistaken about the use of the word "adventita" in the English language. The page is in English and not in Latin. Adventitia is an English noun word and there is no need to use the suffix tunica. Adventitia is a noun in English; see the OED, which says that this noun word has been in use in English since 1838 or earlier. Further, I would say that this use of "tunica adventitia" is inconsistent as the muscularis could be called the Latin names tunica muscularis and the mucosa could be called tunica mucosa. Incidentally, I have not noticed much humour in this talk page so far. I probably should have said "somewhat misleading or not entirely logical" instead of "red herring" above, partly because "red herring" may not translate from English to other languages very well. Snowman (talk) 09:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the humor bit, PizzaMan was stating that his "22:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)" comment about red herrings was an attempt at humor. Flyer22 (talk) 10:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Retrospectively, I think I see User PizzaMan's humour now. Should foreign bodies and body cavity search be included in the article? I should add that I know nearly nothing about these topics except for retained tampons. Snowman (talk) 11:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

LOL, yeah, I noticed what he meant (or what I think he is talking about) just today when replying to you about it. For all the "smart" compliments I can get, I can be pretty slow/dense sometimes. And, yes, I think we should include the topic of body cavity search in the article, either in the Clinical significance section or the Society and culture section. Which section do you think would be best to put that content in? I'm also fine this edit you made to the section we are currently discussing. I disagreed with your use of "books" in place of "sources," though, since, like I stated in this edit, "it's not just book sources that list four layers, just like it's not just book sources that list three layers." So I went with "texts" in place of "books." Flyer22 (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I realised the difficulty about using the word "books" when I was writing it, however I thought that it got the message across. Using "authors" instead of books or texts would also work. I would think that body cavity search is nearly always forensic, so I would not put it in the medical section. Retained tampax is a medical topic and is a cause of discharge. Incidentally, I thought that the Wiki article "body cavity search" is quite informative, but I have not checked the sources at this juncture. Snowman (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Gosh; I think that the three/four layer issue has been resolved now. Does anyone else think it has been resolved? Snowman (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's resolved for me. Flyer22 (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Section organization

The sections on gross anatomy, histology, and embryology need there own dedicated sections (or subsections) to unscramble the disorganization. The heading "Layers, regions and histology" includes too much. Anatomical relations should also have a separate heading. I see many readability problems and ambiguities, which needs a tidy up with a reorganization. Any comments? Snowman (talk) 20:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

How is it disorganized to combine the embryonic development material with the general structure material, as is currently done? As shown by the hidden note I left in that section, I combined embryonic development material with the General structure section since the General structure section is otherwise too small; per MOS:PARAGRAPHS, "short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading."

And layers, regions and histology all go together, as that section shows; it's challenging to talk about one without talking about the other; I see no need for artificial separation of that material, which can cause a disjointed feel. And again, "short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." I am not keen on very short subsections, when that material can be adequately combined with another section. Flyer22 (talk) 23:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, look at how the Heart article, which is being worked on and seemingly improved for WP:Good article status, currently has a Membranes, surface features, and layers section; that section is similar to my Layers, regions and histology setup. The difference in this case is that the Heart article has subsections that are hidden from the table of contents, which makes the table of contents easier to read and does not make the article look longer than it actually is. I would be somewhat okay with doing similar for this article, since part of the reason that I don't like subsections for very small content is because it makes the table of contents less easy to read and the article look longer than it actually is. However, I'd still prefer that we don't needlessly break content into subsections. The current setup that I have going is fine, in my opinion, whether we reorganize a bit of that material in the current setup or not. Flyer22 (talk) 23:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I had a quick look at the Heart article, which is not currently a good article. Incidentally, I doubt that it will be a GA until a considerable number of amendments have been done, which will involve a lot of work over weeks or months. The heart article has the embryology in a dedicated section unlike in the vagina article. Unfortunately, the heart article does not have any micrographs of the heart showing histology nor a histology section. I do not see why the heart article should be considered as an example of how to organize the vagina article. Snowman (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:MEDMOS is a guideline, not a policy, and, as noted by that guideline, we can have a layout that best suits the article. I pointed to the Heart article as an example of an anatomy layout that is perfectly acceptable, and is similar to the way that I have formatted the Vagina article in one aspect. I did not look to the Heart article for designing the Layers, regions and histology heading and its contents, as the time frames between the two articles should show. And I have no doubt that the Heart article will soon be a WP:Good article, with the editors it has working on it. You can obviously disagree with the way that editors there are formatting that article, as you have disagreed with people's WP:Good article or WP:Featured article work times before, but it will be up to the (hopefully very experienced) WP:Good article reviewer to pass or fail that article. The Heart article currently has its histology material incorporated into its Membranes, surface features, and layers section because that stuff goes hand in hand, similar to what I stated above about the Layers, regions and histology section of the Vagina article. And like WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy makes clear, we can put the histology material where appropriate. The Heart article has the "embryology in a dedicated section" because there is a lot more to state about the development of the heart than there is about the development of the vagina. Furthermore, the Heart article has its development material away from the Structure section; it's much farther down, in a section called Development. I prefer to have embryological material in the Structure section, which is acceptable, per WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy, and I prefer to have it come before we explain the other anatomical details. In my opinion, for information past the lead, it makes more sense to explain the development of the anatomy before we move into explaining the anatomy in general, and so on. Flyer22 (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that essence of your comments about my reviewing of articles nominated for GA and FA is inaccurate. Snowman (talk) 18:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, you are never, or are rather rarely, satisfied with an article's WP:Good article or WP:Featured article status. Sometimes, you seemingly shoot for WP:Featured article status on an article that is aiming for WP:Good article status, as was noted by others at the Cervix article talk page. It can be fine to always feel that a Misplaced Pages article needs improvement (I often feel that way), but I disagree with feeling that way to the point that a Misplaced Pages article can never reach WP:Good article or WP:Featured article status. Not every Misplaced Pages article is going to be perfect. Partly, because there's always that one person who doesn't find it perfect. Flyer22 (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that essence of your comments about my reviewing of articles nominated for GA and FA is inaccurate. Snowman (talk) 10:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

And I don't, per what I stated above; my mind won't be changing on that unless I see that it should be changed on that. Matters like these and others certainly don't inspire me to change my mind on that. Flyer22 (talk) 11:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I would ask editors to reflect on the histology that is being discussed on this talk page. Snowman (talk) 11:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

This is what I am talking about when it comes to needless division. In what way is it needed to have the reasons for modification divided into subsections? Surgery and female genital mutilation are both genital modifications. And, again, per MOS:PARAGRAPHS, "short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." Flyer22 (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, female genital mutilation is a clinical significance matter. So, of course, information regarding it belongs in the Clinical significance section. I included the purely medical aspects of surgery and female genital mutilation in the Clinical significance section, and I included the reasons for these matters as a subsection (Reasons for vaginal modification) in the Society and culture section; this is because the reasons are mostly a cultural matter. These things are both medical and cultural matters, and it seems best to me to have them addressed in both the Clinical significance and Society and culture sections, instead of choosing to place all of that material in one section or the other. Flyer22 (talk) 14:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

MedMOS

Re Women's Health on webmd.com This webpage is used a as source in the article. I have been trying to decide if it is compliant to MedMOS or not. Near the bottom there is a paragraph under the heading "From our sponsor" that says that the webmd team have not reviewed the content for accuracy. Hence, I do not see any evidence that the main medical content of this page is peer reviewed and the evidence that I do see appears to say that is is not peer reviewed. Any comments? Snowman (talk) 20:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not that WebMD is compliant with WP:MEDMOS; it's that it's compliant with WP:MEDRS. I've seen you use "MedMOS" in place of "WP:MEDRS" a few times. WP:MEDRS is the sourcing guideline for medical content. And WebMD passes, and is listed in, the Other sources section of WP:MEDRS as an acceptable medical source to use. But I was planning on replacing it or leaving it in as an adjunct to scholarly sources (once I've added scholarly sources to go along with it, and I did add a scholarly source for the Kegel exercises part to assist it). But, like, I noted in the #Vulvovaginal subarticles section above: With this edit, Mikael Häggström broke out the vast majority of the vaginal infection/disease material and made it into an article called Vaginal disease. So that cut away work that I'd intended to do for the medical section of the Vagina article. I feel that the Diseases section of the Vagina article needs more fleshing out, which is why I made this edit soon afterward Mikael Häggström's splitting of the content (followup edits are here, here, here, here, here, here and here). Flyer22 (talk) 23:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: Snowmanradio has queried WP:Med editors about this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 11:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Organisation of the "Structure" section

See Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Anatomy. This gives some ideas on how to re-organize the structure section. It shows an overall plan of how to organize it, which is useful. I think that a "Histology" subsection would be helpful. Snowman (talk) 21:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

We've already addressed this in the #Section organization above, where, in part I stated, "WP:MEDMOS is a guideline, not a policy, and, as noted by that guideline, we can have a layout that best suits the article" and "like WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy makes clear, we can put the histology material where appropriate." I find it more appropriate where I've placed it; this is for the reasons I already noted in the Section organization section above. Layers, regions and histology obviously all go together. You have not given me a valid reason for creating a separate Histology subsection. Flyer22 (talk) 02:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that the headings and organization of the "Structure" section could be improved. At this juncture, I would be grateful if User Flyer22 would reflect on the current organization and look for potential improvements. Snowman (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I am focused on the current organization and see no need for artificial division. Flyer22 (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I would like to engage more opinions, so I have invited participation with a message at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anatomy#Applying_WP_Anatomy's_guidelines_on_headings. Snowman (talk) 14:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I saw and commented there. But there are already two WP:Anatomy editors other than me watching this talk page, as indicated here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The Anatomy main page lists 34 participants. I would say that my invitation on the WP Anatomy talk page is relevant. Snowman (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

And the vast majority of those participants are not as active with anatomy topics as the two editors I pointed to are. Being at that project often, I know that the vast majority of posts there do not attract a significant number of editors. However, I was not suggesting that your aforementioned post is irrelevant. Flyer22 (talk) 15:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Three different layers of cells for the vaginal epithelium

The text for the three different layers of cells for the vaginal epithelium used to state: "The vaginal epithelium consists of three different layers of cells  – superficial cornified cells, intermediate cells and basal cells."

With this edit, Snowmanradio changed "superficial cornified cells" to "superficial flat cells," stating "the link to 'cornified' is wrong because that is a page about keratinised cells. I thin probably meant partially cornified - just put flat cells for now."

In response to that, as seen here, I stated, "Hmm, regarding cornified cells and the vagina, I usually see that discussed with regard to a rat or mouse's vagina." and "Regarding humans, some texts state 'pre-cornified and cornified' for what they mean by 'superficial layers.'"

Snowmanradio followed that up with this edit, where he stated "rather ill defined layers" and changed "different layers of cells" to "three rather arbitrary layers of cells."

Axl or anyone else, do you have any thought on this? It doesn't seem too accurate to me to refer to these layers of cells as arbitrary. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding Snowmanradio's use of the word arbitrary in this case. Also, I'd rather stick to what the WP:Reliable sources state on this matter. As seen with this Google Books search (Vagina cornified), sources are usually focusing on rat or mouse anatomy when they talk about the vagina and use the word cornified. Either that, or they are talking about vaginal cornification occurring in women between the 8th and 12th days of the menstrual period or because of some vaginal disease. By contrast, this Google Books search (Vagina pre-cornified and cornified) shows sources giving better space to humans while also talking about non-human animals. And if you look at this source, currently from page 3 of that search, Physiological Pharmaceutics: Barriers to Drug Absorption, 2000, page 273, CRC Press, it shows a cross section through the vaginal mucosa, stating: Cornified Cell, Precornified Cell, Intermediate Cell, Parabasal Cell, Basal Cell, and Lamina Propria. Flyer22 (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The trouble is that the piped Wikilink (]) went to Stratum corneum, so it was necessary for me to remove the wikilink (see my edit). Cornified layer has a redirect to a Wiki article about the keratinised layer of the skin, which is inappropriate here. The wiki does not have a link about the a top layer of squamous cells other than Squamous cells, so I replaced the unsuitable Wikilink with this better one. We could go into the ultrastruture of the vaginal epithelium and include the glycogen content, keratin, and intracellular structures at a later stage in the development of this article. Snowman (talk) 14:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Of coarse, the layers of the vaginal epithelium are rather ill defined in histology - look at the layers to see how hard it is to fathom out where one layer begins and another ends. The reliable source that I have added as an inline source in the article to support this is: Kurman, R. J, ed. (2002). Blaustein's Pathology of the Female Genital Tract (5th ed.). Spinger. p. 154.. In addition note that some articles say that the vaginal epithelium is three layers and some say that it is five layers. The article currently says three layers with references, while the book, Physiological Pharmaceutics: Barriers to Drug Absorption says it has five layers. Snowman (talk) 14:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that it's easy to see why Cornified layer currently redirects to the Stratum corneum article; look at its Function section, which addresses cornification. What would be a better redirect for Cornified layer? I currently don't see what would be. And what do you mean by "We could go into the ultrastruture of the vaginal epithelium and include the glycogen content, keratin, and intracellular structures at a later state in the development of this article"? As for the rest, I'm not convinced that we should state "arbitrary" or "ill defined" for the layers of the vaginal epithelium; we are already going to be stating something similar to that for the three or four-layer aspect noted above on the talk page, and I don't feel that we need to go into overkill on these discrepancy matters. But specifically regarding your point about three layers vs. five layers for the vaginal epithelium, I do understand where you are coming from on that. For example, this source, Robboy's Pathology of the Female Reproductive Tract, 2009, page 112, from Elsevier Health Sciences, that I recently added to the section we are discussing (partly for the "number of layers for the vaginal epithelium" aspect), states, "The epithelium consists of a single layer of basal cells, several layers of parabasal cells, and thick intermediate and superficial layers of highly glycogenated cells." But take note that some sources describe the layers as three even while noting the basal and parabasal layers and precornified and cornified layers. For example, putting aside where it states "15-20 layers thick," this source, Clinical Gynecology (4Th Edition), 1998, page 98, from Orient Blackswan, states, "The lining epithelium is 15-20 layers thick and consists of deep (basal and parabasal layers), middle (intermediate) and superficial (precornified and cornified) layers." I'm not sure how WP:Reliable the Orient Blackswan source is, but, to me, its approach seems like the better approach to take in this case; I mean regarding its "deep (basal and parabasal layers), middle (intermediate) and superficial (precornified and cornified) layers" wording. Flyer22 (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Normal vaginal epithelium does not have a stratum corneum, so that section on the function of the stratum corneum layer of skin is almost entirely irrelevant here. Incidentally, it seems odd to me that the stratum corneum layer topic has a separate page, because it would fit well on the Epidermis (skin) page (which also contains a description of the stratum corneum of skin). Snowman (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

At this stage, I would include a minimalistic description of the layers of the vaginal epithelium, because the effect of oestrogen is replaced by progesterone in the second half of the menstrual cycle after ovulation and the appearance of the vaginal epithelium changes cyclically. I may include a more detailed description of the effects of these influences later. Hence, I would simply call the top layer "flat cells", as I have done in one of my edits to the article. Snowman (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The description of the thick vaginal epithelium that you include above would be typical for the reproductive years of a woman's life, as the time between puberty and menopause as it is sometimes called. It does not matter to me, if this is described in three, five, or uncounted layers, as long as two (or more) descriptions are not included. The article has an illustration of the vaginal epithelium, so almost certainly interested readers will be looking at the picture in parallel with reading the text. When reading histology books, try to picture the tissues in 3D and not worry too much about the style of the presentation. Take your 3D mind map from book to book, not the exact words or style of description. Snowman (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Since presentation of these cells is more varied than the "three or four layers for the vaginal wall" aspect, we are in agreement not to go into the discrepancy aspects regarding the layers of cells for the vaginal epithelium. I still feel that we should go the "deep (basal and parabasal layers), middle (intermediate) and superficial (precornified and cornified) layers" route. I also think we should specifically address under what circumstance cornification happens. Flyer22 (talk) 10:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, uncounted "basal, parabasal ..." is good in my opinion except I am unsure about the "cornified" bit. The upper layers change with cyclical hormonal changes, so that would need special consideration. I am a little mystified by what cornified cells means at that site, and I would rather not mention my vague hunches in case I am wrong and inadvertently start a long discussion. There might be something in my book that includes electron microscopy photographs, but I can not find it at the present time. I am not commenting on the use of uncounted, three or four layer descriptions that could be used to describe the same vaginal wall here. Snowman (talk) 13:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I did mention above (my "19:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)" post) that some sources, when talking about vaginal cornification, are clear that they are "talking about vaginal cornification occurring in women between the 8th and 12th days of the menstrual period or because of some vaginal disease." Flyer22 (talk) 13:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

If cornification is transient, then surely this would be included in a paragraph about cyclical changes. It looked to me that it was presented in the opening description of the epithelium and seemed to me to imply that cornification is continuously present throughout the menstrual cycle. Snowman (talk) 14:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

A recent success on a related topic: Female genital mutilation article

The Wiki "Female genital mutilation" article has recently achieved FA status following its nomination by User:SlimVirgin. I wondered if she might be interested in contributing to the short sections on FGM in this article, so I have left a short message on her talk page. Snowman (talk) 11:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know. And I saw that you contacted her. What does this have to do with section organization, though? There is still the matter that I want the sections a certain way, and you want the sections a certain way. SlimVirgin generally does not edit anatomy articles, and SlimVirgin and I have a difference of opinion when it comes to reference formatting. I prefer to use citation templates; she does not. Flyer22 (talk) 11:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The topic of FGM was being discussed above with regard to section organization; however, I am happy to make this a new section unrelated to section organization, so I have brought SV's invitation to the bottom of the page. Snowman (talk) 12:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Snowmanradio means this. Also, I added ": Female genital mutilation article" to the heading to make it clearer what this section is about.

As for the material regarding female genital mutilation, what more are you looking for, Snowmanradio? All the Vagina article needs to do on the matter is sufficiently summarize the content...with WP:Reliable sources (WP:MEDRS-compliant sources for the medical aspects); the Female genital mutilation article is obviously the main article for that material. Flyer22 (talk) 12:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

My invitation to SV is for assistance in writing a brief summary on the topic of FGM, following her recent success with the Wiki FGM article, which has achieved FA status. User Flyer22's comment to use WP:MEDRS sources for medical content is relevant, but I think that User Flyer22's link to one of my edits (above) refers to an intermediate stage of editing that is irrelevant to this discussion. Of course, the main article on the topic is FGM. Snowman (talk) 12:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I linked that to make it clearer that this section's contents had been moved. Flyer22 (talk) 12:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand more about that link now, so I have struck out my comment about it above. I had already explained that I had brought the discussion to the bottom of the page, nevertheless, I guess that the actual link might be helpful too. I think that User Flyer22's amendment to the title of this section adds clarity. Snowman (talk) 12:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Anatomy articles
• High-importance Anatomy articles
• Anatomy articles about an unassessed area
• WikiProject Anatomy articles
• B-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• Top-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
• Misplaced Pages objectionable content
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press