Talk:Bladder

Review
... of bladder control: 10.2215/CJN.04520413 JFW &#124; T@lk  10:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

change this page into human urinary bladder?
Considering how human-centric this page is, I think we should change this page into "Human Urinary Bladder" and make a different page for urinary bladders in general, especially considering how different the human's bladder is from other animals'.UserDude (talk) 05:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. We should call this spade a spade: if we are discussing the human bladder, then it should be called that.  I also see no harm in having the main article at the urinary bladder namespace being one that discusses such bladders in general and allowing readers to click on a link to the human version in the opening paragraph or under a hatnote.  Absolutely. KDS4444 (talk) 01:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * There, I have gone and started a draft version of an article on bladders which can be used to replace the current one. It is available via my userpage, here.  I will continue to work on it, but also would like to encourage others to help create it.  I have completed basic sections for reptiles, amphibians, and fish, all of which could use expanding, and have marked out sections for mammals, birds, and other species.  I don't know which non-vertebrates (any?) have a urinary bladder— would be very interested in including this if someone else does.  The mammals section should have a subsection called "Human urinary bladder" which begins with a "Main article" link but also summarizes the current urinary bladder article (which is about humans) and differentiates the human bladder from other types (to the extent that it is distinct).  KDS4444 (talk) 06:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 26 April 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus does not exist for a move at this time. Discussion concerning what should be included in the article and if it should be expanded to include non-human animals can take place outside of the RM process. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Urinary bladder → Human urinary bladder – Please see the above talk page. I have created a new page to replace the current page which is located here and which should be suitable to the purpose. KDS4444 (talk) 14:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Support, but suggest recasting this as a multiple move request with Bladder (disambiguation)->Bladder (Bladder redirects here currently). Links to both this article and bladder should get sorted out so that links intending human bladders go to the right article. Plantdrew (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible oppose — this flies in the face of the consensus to keep articles from including "human" in the title. That the human kidney dominates the page is only understandable because it is what most people are interested about. Ping — will also inform WP:MED/WP:ANAT if no one else gets there first.  Carl Fredrik  talk 16:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Where was consensus established not to include human in the title?An RfC from 2014 seems to favor including human. Plantdrew (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This request has nothing to do with the Kidney. Also, why are you pinging LT910001? Because this feels a little like an attempt at WP:VOTESTACKing to me...  KDS4444 (talk) 01:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have notified WP:MED and WP:ANAT. Also, I completely agree with the recasting suggestion made by Plantdrew.  Let's make that the substance of this move proposal, since it is clearly what would have to be done, yes?  Also, I am not sure the reasoning that we should "maintain the status quo because that is what people are expecting" is truly valid here— if a person types in "urinary bladder" shouldn't they "expect" to get an article on urinary bladders (generally) with the option to view the article on the specifically human version right at the top?  Do you think anyone would be surprised to end up on a page that wasn't specifically about the human bladder? (Did you have a look at the alternative article mentioned above?).  We already have Human eye, Human penis, Human digestive system, and Human mouth, among others.  KDS4444 (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, consider that although the Encyclopedia Britannica has only one article on the urinary bladder, the title of that article is Urinary bladder (human anatomy) (it begins the article by discussing the bladder in other animals). I'd be okay with leaving this article in place, but only if its lead was replaced with much more neutral (i.e., non-human-specific) wording.  KDS4444 (talk) 02:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * strong oppose per CF--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are going to enter a !vote of "Strong oppose" and base that on what CF said, I have to ask for clarification because CF's wording looks like it has nothing to do with this article. Could you be more specific?  Do you know of any policy-related reasons why this should not be moved?  Or is this a case of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT?  KDS4444 (talk) 02:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * CF's wording is clear to me (and apparently the majority that voted)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 07:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am telling you, sir, that it is not clear to me and apparently it isn't all that clear to you if you are not able to answer my request. I asked for clarification, and you responded by saying, "It's already clear."  Not an answer.  KDS4444 (talk) 08:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support, but even if we don't do this the sections from here should be moved to Urinary bladder. UserDude (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article about urinary bladder should definitely be mainly about urinary bladders in humans. We can than have another article called "Urinary bladders in other animals". This is what we do for diseases. Just imagine for the moment how jarring it would be for the readers if the article on pneumonia was about pneumonia in all species generally and then if you wanted specific content about human you had to find the article called "Human pneumonia". Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, Doc, that is astonishingly anthropocentric. This is not the Encyclopaedia of the human body. Cheers, &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * — I do not understand how this is an argument. Frankly, society (and I mean all of it, everywhere) is extremely anthropocentric  (it has to be, by definition). I'm not suggesting that covering other creatures is WP:FRINGE, but the thought that they should be covered equally (or even that they could be covered in equal detail) in the encyclopaedia is. Carl Fredrik  talk 10:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * . The point is that humans are also animals. They are not functionally distinct from the rest of terrestrial (as distinct from possible alien) life. They evolved from the same origins and share structural details and physiological functionality as well as history, to a greater or lesser degree. When we have an article about a topic, the article is about the topic as expressed in the title. Urinary bladder is an organ shared by a wide range of animals, and therefore the article should be about the wide range of organs having that name. Humans are just one of them. If we were to produce an article on Urinary bladder and claim that the prime topic was the urinary bladder of pigs, people would consider it unbalanced. That remains the case when people claim that the prime topic is the urinary bladder of humans. Keeping this clear is part of educating readers that there is more to life than people. If there is sufficient interest and information to have an article on the urinary bladder of humans, (as there quite obviously is), then there is no problem having an article on that aspect of the urinary bladder, but it is unbalanced to assume that it is the primary topic of the general term.
 * I also dispute your assertion that it would be WP:FRINGE to cover other animals equally to humans. It would be appropriate to cover any animal (or other life form) to the extent that reliable and potentially useful information is available. In most cases this is less than for humans, and in most cases there is no-one stepping forward to do it, but that is a different artifact of the Wikipedia system, we all write about what we want to. That does not make it right to claim human aspects as the primary topics and all others together as secondary. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It is called WP:DUE. I do not support tagging all articles pertaining to medicine and anatomy, with a paragraph of text at the top and a bunch of words in bold because few people care to write content about (and likely few people care to read about) the topic in other animals. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The titular topic of the article is about anatomy, not medicine, and anatomy covers other animals as well as humans, so the WP:DUE argument logically supports the inclusion of relevant information on those other animals which also have a urinary bladder. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 21:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 *  oppose if folks want to add content about specifics of bladders in other species that would be great, and we could do a WP:SPLIT at that time if needed . Yes our articles about anatomy are human-centric. See Stomach,  Large intestine, Gallbladder, Gastrointestinal tract, Femur.  Really, have a look at them.    There is however Brain and Human brain but seeing how ours is so whack compared to others this makes sense. The bladder isn't like that.  There is also Penis and Human penis but oddly see Vagina ... well hm, who are WP editors mostly? :)   Jytdog (talk) 06:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC) (add a bit Jytdog (talk) 08:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC))
 * Not yet. There is not enough content about non-human urinary bladders in the article to justify a split, which would be appropriate when there is enough to stand alone as Urinary bladder in a more general context. This is an Encyclopaedia, not a Medical encyclopaedia or an Encyclopaedia of the human organism, so human anatomy should not get priority even though humans will be reading it. If there were to be an article going into great detail about the pig's bladder, no-one would be astonished if it had a title that indicated the scope. Human is not, as far as I am aware, the official default category. That is just one step away from Man, as an exclusive category, and we already have enough trouble with the gender gap. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Not yet I agree concur with . The primary issue with most X -> Human X moves in the past has been a high-intensity argument followed by a good night's sleep where all participants then return to their normal patterns of editing, followed by a return to the status quo - ie that most editing, for better or worse, continues to occur related to human organs and no actual new animal anatomy content is added. has in fact gone above and beyond this by creating and sourcing a large amount of content, and I will happily offer a continuous supply of light refreshments to him if he continues this in the future (!), as zoological anatomy is an area very sparsely covered at present. That said, at present I think some more content may be needed to justify a WP:SPLIT. I do however in general terms support such splits if there is enough content to justify them (which is rare for reasons already mentioned). Two other notes: was watching this page before pinged by CFCF, and apologies for my more firey initial reply, did not see the blue link to the sandbox page on my browser --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose at this time. Move proposals based on ideology rarely get my support, and this case is no different.  IMO the ideal article will look a lot more like a comp vert article than "read this if you only want to know about human anatomy, and read that if you only want to know about veterinary anatomy".  If an article containing many animals ever gets too long and unwieldy, then I might support a split.  But that's going to require being at least four times the current length (which means more than double the length that we'll have after KDS4444 merges in the sandbox content).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with this analysis, particularly regarding the current and projected size of the article. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 21:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose This argument keeps re-emerging - and the reality remains that there are Other animals sections on the pages that receive minimal input from anyone. Agree with others that if the info on other animals ever became too large a split might then be welcome. --Iztwoz (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think that shoving all non-human content into a section titled ==Other animals== is usually the right approach for anatomy articles, especially when we'd be putting nearly half the content in that section. I'd be satisfied with having "human" be a sub-topic of ==Mammals==.  However, I think we should even consider ditching the "kind of animal" organizational system for basic anatomy articles like this, and taking it from a completely different angle.  It'd make sense to begin with ==Embryology== (for all the animals) and ending with ==Diseases== (for all the animals), and comparing multiple animals at every step in between.  I believe that a lot of people would be interested in comparative facts, such as knowing that an elephant's urinary bladder is about 250 times the size of a human one, or that an average human urinary bladder holds 600 ml of urine, and that this is more urine than a dehydrated camel produces in 24 hours.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is a starter. Animal editors have given up editing articles the medical project considers under its scope. There are sound reasons for this, which shouldn't need spelling out. Animal articles need separating so they can be removed from the control of the medical project. Incidently, animal science has a much wider scope than veterinary science. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Why have editors given up on articles that the medical project considers are in their scope? They do not own them. An article can legitimately be within the scope of any number of projects. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a charming belief, but it clashes with the reality here. If you persist with that belief, then in due course I'm sure other contributers in this thread, such as Doc James or CFCF or Jytdog, will clarify the situation for you. You may find it best to just gracefully accept the situation is beyond remedy, and find something else to do. Btw, I agree with your views WhatamIdoing, but that is moot (in the American sense) since the soil is not fertile for a sensible approach like that here. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I an assuming good faith from the WP:MED, as I am also a member. I think that the editors you mention are amenable to logical reasoning and do not see themselves as owning the articles, even if it does appear to some people that they do, and their actions can sometimes be construed that way. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well good luck --Epipelagic (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I hope that logic, reason and common ground will be more relevant than luck, but thank you for your good wishes. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And I hope you find the learning curve interesting. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I assume that a candid answer to that question has more to do with people than with policies, so perhaps this isn't the right time and place to have talk about that problem. According to WP:MEDA, this article ought to be more WikiProject Anatomy than WikiProject Medicine, except for the ==Clinical significance== section. But I'm concerned less with "who's (theoretically) helping" and more with "Why are we stuffing >40% into a section called ==Other animals== when no respectable anatomist would take that approach?"  Anatomy books don't start with one species (e.g., humans) and proceed to other species.  They start with fundamental developmental processes, and illustrate the material with multiple species as appropriate.  So why aren't we doing the same?  (Note that you are free to re-phrase my question as "Why didn't WhatamIdoing do a better job when she created WP:MEDMOS in 2008, or at least notice and complain when Doc James added ==Other animals== to that suggested list in 2012, and Flyer merged the old ==Comparative anatomy== suggestion with the new ==Other animals== idea?"  "The guideline says to ignore what anatomists have done for more than a century" is not a sufficient answer.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This is interesting, what you write here. There is a bigger issue of how articles about organs should be structured.  Has nothing to do with the name of this article, really.  This discussion is headed toward "no consensus" at best or even oppose, so a rename is very unlikely to happen.  It sounds like the proposer should probably withdraw this, and a new, broadly advertised conversation should get started at the guideline that discusses the structure of articles like this. Jytdog (talk) 19:23, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with that there does not appear to be sufficient support for a name change, and that a discussion on the structure and naming of this and similar articles at a more widely visible place would be a good way forward. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose Picking one article from Category:Human anatomy to be an exception is not helpful. As pointed out above, there are a small number of anatomy articles which have "human" in the title, however those cases are the way they are for good reasons that are not relevant here. After there is enough material to split this article into human/other, a discussion can decide what to call them. Johnuniq (talk) 06:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Why is it relevant that the article is in Category:Human anatomy? It can legitimately be in several categories. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am saying that Urinary bladder is one article from a large number of articles on human anatomy—the category is a handy way of getting a list. If there is a problem requiring that this article be renamed, the solution should involve consideration of how to handle all similar articles because a uniform style is very helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 09:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I see. I do not agree that Urinary bladder is primarily a human organ, but I agree that the principle should apply to anatomical articles in general. There are very few if any organs that are exclusively human. Almost all are shared by mammals, most by tetrapods, many by vertebrates and a fairly large number by a wider range of animals. The primary article (the one without disambiguation) should be the one with the widest application. However until there are two articles about the same organ, disambiguation is not necessary, but a notice informing the reader that the article is only about one narrow aspect of the subject is useful until the article is expanded sufficiently to make the full scope obvious. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Johnuniq: "those cases are the way they are for good reasons that are not relevant here." Okay... Care to elaborate on just what those reasons are for us?  'Cause I don't see them.  "After there is enough material to split this article into human/other, a discussion can decide what to call them."  I have created material for a split article.  I mentioned this and provided a link at the beginning of this discussion, which is also the discussion you are proposing we have but that it looks like you are denying the existence of.  There is plenty of material for both articles without leaving either as a stub.  If you want to oppose the proposed move, could you please specify more explicit and meaningful reasons?  KDS4444 (talk) 08:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The move request is framed in terms of renaming the existing article and that is a problem because heaps of examples have been given (such as liver and lung and pneumonia) where human readers can find the human-focused topics they are probably interested in. I am opposing changing the style of a small number of articles without consideration for the overall arrangement. If User:KDS4444/Urinary bladder were incorporated into the article, an argument could be made for splitting, and then people could give opinions on the names each article should have. Johnuniq (talk) 09:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Use of Template:Human-centric in this article
I consider that the use of the template was within policy and guidelines, that the removal was unwarranted, and the reasons given for removal were inadequate or inappropriate but in the interests of collegiate discussion and in the tradition of bold-revert-discuss, I am willing to discuss it here. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The Human-centric tag was TfD'd recently with a consensus to keep. I understand this to imply that it may be used when an editor considers it is appropriate.
 * We can usually assume good faith in the editor adding the template unless there is evidence to the contrary.
 * It is customary to flag an article with a notice specifying a perceived problem with the content. This is generally done by any editor who sees the problem and considers it necessary or desirable to point out the problem to other editors and/or readers.
 * In this case the article title is generic, and therefore can apply to a range of animals which happen to include humans, but the content is almost exclusively about the human organ, therefore the article is within the scope of applicability described for the template, and good faith may reasonably be assumed.
 * The template was removed with edit summary Silly tag, which does not look like an assumption of good faith.
 * I agree with the application of the template to this article, for reasons given above, so restored it, stating that it was fully justified
 * It was reverted by the same editor with the comment that it would need consensus. It is not clear what consensus is meant. There are two possibilities that I can see;
 * Consensus for the existence and therefore for appropriate use of the template, which I consider to be established in the opinion of the closer of the TfD, and
 * At least two editors find it appropriate for this article, and I am not aware of a policy requiring prior consensus to apply an accepted template indicating that an article may be unbalanced in content, when that imbalance is apparent.
 * The conditions for removing a template identifying a perceived problem with an article are that the problem does not exist at the time of removal. This is not the case here.
 * The issue is being discussed above. But yes I oppose the use of the tag and removed it. There is nothing wrong with an article being human centric. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I and at least one other person support the use of the tag, so why do you consider it appropriate to remove it a second time without discussion? &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you oppose expansion of an article to include relevant content on other animals having the organ identified in the title? &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes I support adding relevant content on other animals. And do so in a number of articles I have worked on. We already have a move request at the top of the article working develop consensus around the issue. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * By my count there are at least three editors who have been supporters of the placement of the human-centric tag on this article, while Doc James stands alone (?) in acting to remove it. I don't think anyone disagrees that the article is heavily "human-centric"; Doc recently attempted to nominate that template for deletion (for the second time in its history) though this was quickly withdrawn.  In response to Doc's pneumonia comment above: I am not proposing that we have "human" attached to the beginning of every article about every thing in existence that could possibly affect humans ("Human death", "Human angst", "Human ingrown hairs"...  "Human pneumonia") but rather that the articles for basic anatomic structures like mammalian and tetrapod organs— common to many but unique in each— either have a corresponding generalized article in which the human is de-emphasized or that the human version have a separate article all to itself.  You seem to oppose either.  Doc, you have repeatedly taken the stance that all people want to know about when they come to Wikipedia is more about humans— and you have been told by several editors that this is simply not so, yet you continue to maintain your position.  It isn't helpful, and I don't get the sense that you are listening.  KDS4444 (talk) 08:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The main article IMO should cover both human and other animals / organisms. The human centric details should come first followed by those in other animals generally.
 * If details on specific other organisms become overly large than a sub article should be created for that content. The GA on heart is set up like this.
 * Yes some others have different positions. In the above RfC you have not currently gotten consensus for such a change. It is not that I am not listening, it is that I disagree. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Detrusor urinae muscle
Covered more fully on target page Iztwoz (talk) 11:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Disagree destrusor is an independently notable muscle, even if it is a component of the bladder wall... we could rename to destrusor muscle though? --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:05, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I would support a rename. I've frankly never heard anyone refer to it as "detrusor urinae". That implies there are other detrusor's, which there aren't. Carl Fredrik  talk 12:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose — While intricately related, they are not the same. It may make sense to keep them in one entry for those who are knowledgeable about anatomy — but for the lay man it will be confusing to only have one article. Sort of like "arm" is a valid anatomical concept, but so it biceps brachii — and it does not make sense to have only one article there. Carl Fredrik  talk 12:30, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Withdraw  - would like to withdraw merge proposal and have proposed name change instead.--Iztwoz (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

"Vertex (urinary bladder)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Vertex (urinary bladder) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 8 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 3 March 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. There is consensus to move as proposed here by policy basis as well as numbers. The main point is that this topic is primary for the more concise proposed title, and opposition is weak. Yes, there are other uses (like “swim bladder”), but that doesn’t mean this use is not primary. Certainly no evidence of any other use having comparable claim to the title was provided. Furthermore, the fact that Bladder is a PRIMARYREDIRECT to this article establishes community consensus regarding this being primary. And nobody even tried to challenge CONCISION, demonstrating how solid that is. I just don’t see any policy basis to oppose in this discussion. Demonstrating the ambiguity of “bladder” doesn’t begin to show this use is not the primary topic for this term. — В²C ☎ 07:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Urinary bladder → Bladder – Per WP:CRITERIA, we should strive for concision. Much like we use arm to refer to the human arm, it makes sense to use bladder as the title to refer to the human bladder. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 00:36, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:NOPRIMARY with swim bladder. Bladder (disambiguation) should be moved to primary, not this article. I would, however, support a move of this article to the less clunky human bladder. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:CONCISE. I also have to oppose the suggestion above to move this article to "human bladder" as this article's scope includes urinary bladders in other animals. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:02, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Any reasoning on why swim bladder would not be a possible competing topic? Wikipedia is not a human medicine-centric encyclopedia only and also includes biology of animals. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Google "bladder" and tell me how many of the search results on the first page are for a swim bladder rather than a urinary bladder. When someone searches for simply "bladder" on Google or Wikipedia, they are highly likely to be looking for this article. That makes it the primary topic. This is no different than Diabetes being the article title for diabetes mellitus even though Diabetes insipidus is also a thing. When someone says "diabetes" unqualified they mean diabetes mellitus, and when someone says "bladder" unqualified they mean a urinary bladder. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Obviously, Google search will be skewed towards medical usage. Wikipedia is more than simply a medical reference, however, it is also a scientific one. On the contrary, pageviews tell a different story, with both of them at similar levels of usage, even if the urinary one is around twice as popular. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Google search results skew towards what most people are looking for when they search a particular term. Google is very, very good at that. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Leaning oppose but support moving Bladder (disambiguation) to Bladder if this doesn't pass. Gonnym (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Moving Bladder (disambiguation) to Bladder would probably require a separate RM discussion. Anyone who supports moving urinary bladder to bladder must by definition think that bladder is a primary redirect for urinary bladder, thus it can be inferred that they would be opposed to moving the DAB page. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per various other bladder on dab page, not least gallbladder etc. support moving Bladder (disambiguation) to Bladder if this doesn't pass. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per nom ---   Tbf69   P &bull;&#32;T 15:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.
 * Oppose per opposers. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support as proposed; this is certainly primary topic by usage and long-term significance, until and unless we launch shark.wikipedia.org Red   Slash  16:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how an integral part of fish is not long-term significant. Seems like a massive stretch to claim that a human body part is, given how long humans have been around compared to fish. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:CONCISE. When looking at |Swim_bladder monthly average pageviews over the long term, it's clear that this topic tends to receive about twice as many views as "swim bladder". Additionally, Bladder has redirected here for over 12 years, and a look through relevant talk page histories provides no indication that the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT has been a source of any confusion for readers. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "About twice as many" is a far cry from the amount required to claim something is primary by pageviews. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:PRIMARYTOPIC doesn't provide quantitative thresholds for primariness, it just says much more likely than any other single topic – and at the scale we're dealing with here, I think 'twice as much' meets that threshold. It's one thing if these were niche topics receiving 10 vs. 20 monthly views, but the situation here is that thousands more people are seeking the urinary bladder than the swim one. (For that matter, I think the significance criterion of PRIMARYTOPIC also favors this proposal, to an extent. Human readers are generally going to have more interest in human anatomy topics than in the anatomy of other species.) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose this proposal, instead support moving Bladder (disambiguation) to Bladder per various other bladder, swim bladder, gallbladder, fuel bladder etc. Skovl (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Other topics mentioned such as swim bladder, gallbladder, and fuel bladder are essentially partial title matches. Note that the word "bladder" occurs 163 times at Urinary bladder, and only 25% of those occurrences is prefixed by "urinary". On the other hand, 70% of the occurrences of the word "bladder" at swim bladder are part of the phrase "swim bladder" (of the remainder, another 10% are part of the phrase "air bladder" or "gas bladder"). Of readers who search for the word "bladder" in isolation, the vast majority will be seeking urinary bladder. Moving from the status quo to a WP:NOPRIMARY situation will be creating an impediment to readers and editors (there are 235 mainspace wikilinks to bladder!). Colin M (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This is falsely believing that titles disambiguated by WP:NATURAL are WP:PTMs. Fuel bladder, water bladder, etc. can still simply be referred to as a bladder. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm dubious of this claim. Could you show some examples of sources that refer to these entities with just the term "bladder" (without having previously referred to them by the longer name)? I would be surprised to see this, except maybe in some technical publications aimed at a very specific audience. Colin M (talk) 13:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support While there are multiple types of bladder, those are usually qualified by some descriptor such as "swim" or "gall". Only this one is commonly referred to as "bladder" alone. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. I agree with King of Hearts and others who have made similar arguments. I also agree with ModernDayTrilobite's assessment of page views. Adumbrativus (talk) 08:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)