Talk:Vagina/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Better second lead image suggestion

After checking the Wikidata entry, I noticed that File:Vaginal opening description-en.svg is the image displayed there. It's basically the same image as File:Vaginal opening description.jpg (the current second lead image), except more descriptive and with the unnamed numbers replaced with actual English-language terms. Replacing the current second lead image with this other one seems uncontroversial to me, but I might as well ask here first, especially given this has Good Article status. An added benefit of doing so is that the numbered list in the caption, which is useless to anyone who does not see the image anyway, can be removed altogether. The only downside is the loss of the wikilinks in the list, but that's hardly much of a loss. Thoughts? —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 22:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure how readable it would be in the infobox, which is a pretty small image. The main benefit of having it *not* in the image is that the text stays the same size as the other text. I think the numbers are too small in the current image though as well. Mvolz (talk) 07:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

No. I just tried "show preview" with the proposed image and it is a total failure as predicted by Mvolz. Johnuniq (talk) 07:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh wow, I was so caught up with what I thought was an interesting find that I did not consider about whether it would even be clearly visible given the image size! Yes, perhaps if the image size was bigger, it might be appropriate, but increasing the image size is probably not at all appropriate here, so it's a non-starter. Given these size constraints, I agree that the current approach is preferable. Sorry about the time sink, Mvolz and Johnuniq. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 12:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Generalizing from the vagina to the body as a whole

ALL PARTS OF BODY SUBJECT TO DISEASE AND DISORDERS. Flyer22 Reborn reverted my change. The change included the line "Like every region of a human body, the vagina is subject to disorders." Flyer22 said it was reverted in part because "every region" of the body is not subject to disorders.

    I have worked taking care of sick people for 35 years. Claiming that any part, any region of humans is not subject to disorders is just incorrect and naive.  The general trend is "from dust to dust." It will all corrupt and fail, given enough time. The whole learning of modern medicine disagrees with Flyer 22. Every organ is subject to disorders.  Every kind of tissue is subject to them.  Every cell is subject to disorders.  Every molecule, every protein, every enzyme, every strand of DNA is subject to deterioration, malfunction.  The eyelashes, the fingernails, the hair follicles, every tiny piece is subject to disorders.  Indeed, like every part of the body, the genitals develop disorders if given enough time.Moabalan (talk) 22:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Your edit was on 8 April 2017—20 months ago. Please do not use Wikipedia for general commentary—this page is to discuss actionable proposals to improve the article. Adding a personal observation ("Like every region of a human body") is original research and not needed. See WP:TP and ask at WP:HELPDESK regarding indenting comments. Johnuniq (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I did respond on the talk page to Moabalan; this is now seen at Talk:Vagina/Archive 9#"Every region of a human body". It appears that I interpreted Moabalan's wording differently than what Moabalan intended. For example, in that archived section, I stated, "Even in the case of osteoporosis (which is called a disease rather than a disorder), it's not noted as something that affects every single area of the body." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Inappropriate Photos

Would anyone else support the notion of removing the graphic photos on this page? I find that such is inappropriate for a website that is accessible to minors, as the photos appear to be quite pornographic in nature. 24.182.207.10 (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

The images are anatomically factual and objective. WP:NOTCENSORED reads: "Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content." --Zefr (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, the images were present during the Good Article review in June, so they were deemed appropriate then. —C.Fred (talk) 00:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

That is not even mentioning the fact that people have tried getting them removed somewhat frequently for years now, but always fail/are overruled. Cr@$h3d@t@^{t@1k t0 m3} 05:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Umm....the definition of Pornography would disagree with your assertion, it states "printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings." I'm not an expert but I would assume an encyclopedia article on Vagina's might show one, I don't see anything that sexualized the images or was designed to stimulate erotic feelings. The mere fact that vaginas exist and there is a picture does not make it designed to be erotica... Just Saying. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

The anus was not necessary in the cover picture

" Skai Kurana (talk) 07:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

No, you are wrong, Skai Kurana. This encyclopedia and this article have an educational function. Ignorance about the structures of the female reproductive and excretory systems is commonplace. It is our job as encyclopedia editors to provide that information, in ways that our readers can best understand. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Front hole

Should this be a redirect to this article or an article in its own right? If it should be a redirect, should (some of) the info that was on it before it was turned back into a redirect be added to this article? Jim Michael (talk) 08:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Male vs. female anatomy....

• The vagina article has around 3 photographs of the human vagina, and one of them is a lead image. It has no photos of non-human animals.
• The vulva article has lots of photographs of the human vulva, including a collage of human vulvas in the lead. It has no photos of non-human animals.
• The penis article has one photograph of a human penis, and it's buried towards the bottom of the article. It has many photos of non-human penises. The lead image is an elephant penis.
• Unlike for vulva or vagina, there is a separate article just for the human penis, that does contain several human photos.

This raises a couple of questions: 1. Should the vagina and vulva articles place more emphasis on non-human animals? 2. Should there be a separate "human vagina" and/or "human vulva" article? WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 16:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

We have been over the non-human animal matter; see Talk:Vagina/Archive 5#Human-centric and Talk:Vagina/GA1 (the part about non-human animals). Talk:Vagina/GA1 has a bunch of strike-throughs; so reading that will not be a smooth read. This article is mostly about humans because, like the "Other animals" section in the article states, "A lack of research on the vagina and other female genitalia, especially for different animals, has stifled knowledge on female sexual anatomy." Per WP:Lead, we also note in the lead that "research on the vagina is especially lacking for different animals." We don't unnecessarily create spin-off articles and unnecessarily make readers go to separate articles. See WP:Spinout, WP:No page and WP:No split. Per WP:MEDMOS#Sections, we create an "Other animals" section in cases like this. This is also obviously done with the Clitoris article, and with medical articles like Cancer and Mental disorder. Some topics, like veterinary oncology to address cancer in non-human animals, might get their own articles. But an article like the Cancer article is going to be human-centric, with an "Other animals" section pointing readers and editors to the article about cancer in non-human animals. There are few detailed studies of the anatomy of the clitoris with regard to non-humans. And you will find very little on the vulva of non-human animals. This is why the Vulva article currently doesn't even have an "Other animals" section. Removing the "Other animals" section from the Vagina article would be unnecessary and would make the article less comprehensive. In other words, creating a Vagina (mammals) article would be unnecessary WP:Content forking. There is no valid reason to split out that small "Other animals" section.

We have also been over the images matter. Minus histology material, there are only two images of actual vaginas (one showing the opening and another showing the rugae) in the article because there are only a few images of vaginas on commons. As you can see there, there are no non-human vagina images available for use on Wikipedia. There are also only two images of an actual vagina in the article because we want the images to focus on the vagina, not on the vulva, and we don't want to clutter a section or create a MOS:SANDWICH issue. We are not going to include images just to include them. With the penis or vulva, there are more external differences, including more noticeable external differences, when comparing them than there are when it comes to comparing vaginas. It makes a lot of sense to show the different vulva variations, especially when we have so many vulva images available. As has also been discussed, we don't use galleries unless beneficial; WP:Gallery is also clear about that.

As has also been discussed, the Penis and Human penis split should be revisited. People who go to the Penis article are clearly most often looking for the human penis topic. So the Human penis is the WP:Primary topic. The only reason that article was split is because some editors felt that the Penis article was too human-centric; see, for example, Talk:Penis/Archive 9#Too anthropocentric. I'd have to check the edit histories of the Penis and and Human Penis articles to see what further discussion, if any, was had. But unlike with the vulva, clitoris and vagina topics, there is a lot of research on non-human animals. There is a lot of information on non-human penises. So having a dedicated non-human penis article is very valid. We could have the Penis article be mostly about humans with an "Other animals" section within it pointing to a Penis (mammals) article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed reply. I would probably support remerging penis and human penis. Also, I did find what I think is a good non-human vagina picture. I'll go ahead and add it. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 03:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

No problem. And regarding this, as seen there, I reverted because it's not really focusing on the vagina. It's focusing on birth. The image is also too big. All that stated, I could support including a normal-sized image showing an animal giving birth in that section; I'd rather it focus more on the vagina if possible, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, birth is one of the major functions of the vagina. And I thought the cow birth montage was just too small at normal size. There is one other animal birth photo I found, though, that may work at thumbnail size. See what you think. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 04:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

That works. Thanks. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Tweak. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Image of vaginal lubrication

Hi there Flyer22. I'm not an expert editor so I can't find how to reply directly to your comment reverting my edit so I'll do so here. Seems an appropriate enough place. Looks like you frequently edit or monitor this page. I have to disagree with your statement that the highly relevant image I tried to add "is best left at the articles its at". Now, were I a better editor, my goal would have been to add the image by this text:

During sexual arousal, and particularly the stimulation of the clitoris, the walls of the vagina lubricate. This begins after ten to thirty seconds of sexual arousal, and increases in amount the longer the woman is aroused.

An image that shows the vulva in an aroused state, with lubrication produced by the vagina, the subject of this page, in the section discussing this function of the organ is highly relevant and contributes to the betterment of the page. I recommend it be added back at the description of that function.Brakoholic (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

There is enough confusion in the world without illustrating the vagina article with something that is not a vagina. Johnuniq (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I created a section for your comment. This is the revert. I stated, "Image not showing up. And, yes, it's a decent image, but it's best suited at the articles it's at: Clitoral erection, Labia, Sexual arousal, Vaginal lubrication and Vulva." Due to MediaWiki:Bad image list, the image doesn't have permission for use at this article, although that can be changed by requesting its use for this article at MediaWiki talk:Bad image list. But I still feel that we don't need the image in this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)