Talk:Vagina/Archive 12

Vaginal epithelium article created
Barbara (WVS) created a Vaginal epithelium article (with some content taken from the German Wikipedia article), which I view as a completely unnecessary creation, given that all of this content is covered in the Vagina article (in its respective sections). I would not want us to cut any detail from this article simply because the Vaginal epithelium article now exists. Cutting from the main article can happen when a spinoff article is created, which makes the main article less comprehensive and causes readers to unnecessarily go to another article. Per the and  discussions above, I am concerned about errors that might be in the article, and, via email, I have been asked to look it over. I think it's best if someone else, like Tom (LT), Doc James or Axl, looks it over. But given that WP:Anatomy prefers to merge content while Barbara (WVS) prefers to create article after article, it is likely that the Vaginal epithelium article will cease to exist at some point. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I will have a look at the article this weekend. I don't have an issue with the fact that there is an article, as the vaginal epithelium does have a fair amount of content that could (and I see has) been covered separately. We also have a precedent with other types of epithelium, you can see on the sidebox at Epithelium. Will have a look in a few days time permitting. --Tom (LT) (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Tom (LT). As you know, I'm not a fan of creating unnecessary articles, especially when they distract or detract from the main article. My issue with the Vaginal epithelium article is that I'm not seeing that it currently covers much that is not already covered in the Vagina article (although it goes into slightly more detail for some pieces), and what little it does cover (the aspects not already covered here) could have been easily added here. There are multiple sections in the Vagina article that deal with the vaginal epithelium, and that content should remain in this article instead of possibly being cut because the Vaginal epithelium article now exists. Even if it is significantly expanded, I do not that it is any more needed than the Human vaginal size article is needed, and we have agreed to merge that article. The only reason I have yet to merge it is because, as stated there, of the poor sourcing. When it comes to anatomy, there is also sometimes the matter of different sources stating different things, including when one compares what one country's sources state to what another country's sources state. At least at the Vagina article, it is easier to address these matters because of the watchers/more attention that the main article gets. I know that Barbara (WVS) also recently created the Vaginal support structures article, which is another issue, because as noted at the end of the section and its  subsection, sources state differently, but at least most of that is not already covered at the Vagina article. Barbara (WVS) doesn't query if any of her spin-off articles are needed; she simply creates them and is then surprised when they are later merged. Anyway, thanks again for agreeing to take a look at the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Please understand that beginning in December I began searching for references and content that would improve the content of this, the Vagina article and help it reach GA status. I have yet to use all the information that I have found. The content and references are more than what can 'fit' into this article. The creation of new articles is not some diabolical scheme to thwart any efforts by others to accomplish their own goals. I am here to build an encyclopedia and edit in good faith. That's all. There is content still missing from the encyclopedia and I am doing what I can to help. If there is a problem, then let's go through a deletion nomination where these new articles can be discussed. This page is about improving this article. It will happen-it will get to GA, I'm sure of it. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉  01:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Barbara (WVS), we have discussed unnecessary article creations before, including recently. It's not about believing that you have hatched some diabolical scheme. It's about your go-to always being to create a spin-off article or a new article that's not a spin-off, even when it's not needed. You recently stated at Talk:Postcoital bleeding, "This happens to me quite a bit-I begin to work on an article, take a short break, and then return to find that it has disappeared." There are valid reasons for that. Even if you substantially expand an article, it doesn't mean that it's needed. You never consider WP:No page, WP:Spinout and WP:No split, and (like I also noted before) you always state that you are "here to build an encyclopedia," as if not having a separate article is not building Wikipedia or as if those, such as myself, who oppose some of your spin-off articles are not here to build an encyclopedia. When I oppose you on something, I can sure enough expect you to state that you are "here to build an encyclopedia," with the implication being that I am not. You commonly go overboard with detail and it is sometimes conflicting detail...in that it contrasts what other sources state. This is all the more reason to assess whether a spin-off article is needed and to work with others to hammer out contradictions. We were hammering out contradictions with regard to the vaginal support structures material above, and you didn't really work with us on that. You simply left a comment, and sometime later created the Vaginal support structures article. One thing about worrying about a spinout article is worrying whether it contradicts the main article. And to be very clear: Wikipedia does not need to cover every little detail of a topic. We commonly summarize sources and leave the super extensive detail to the sources. There is also the matter of listening to people who know more than you do on a topic. I listen to Doc James when I know he knows more. In the case of female genital anatomy, I do know more than you do, which is partly why I am sometimes frustrated by your edits and dismissals of what I have to state (like the keratinization drama sometime back). When Tom (LT) pings me to something about female genital anatomy, it's because he knows that I likely know about it. I am not worried that this article will not reach GA; of course it will. Anyway, we'll see how the Vaginal support structures and Vaginal epithelium articles develop. Discussing merging content doesn't need an AfD, by the way. WP:AfD is not cleanup. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I think that the "Vaginal epithelium" article is valid. It is a notable topic and there is enough material to justify its own page. The article still needs a lot of copy-editing. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Axl, Tom (LT) and Rivertorch, per consistency and the discussions now seen here and here, the Vaginal epithelium article should state "non-keratinized" and "stratified squamous epithelium." When Axl made an edit to that article, "not-keratinized" was there. It was later removed. I also see that Barbara has added content to that article that was taken from this article, but did not give WP:Copying within Wikipedia attribution. Oh well. Although Dianna (who I won't ping to spare Barbara) warns against this and takes it very seriously, I am used to people copying and pasting my work without attribution. And, regardless, I am more concerned about what the main article states, since it will get the most attention from readers, which is another reason why I am not fond of spin-off articles. And so I will mainly be focusing on the main article. I will not be concerning myself much, if at all, with the spin-offs article except to perhaps ask others to fix errors (since, given my history with Barbara, it's best that I don't edit articles she created) or to propose a merge. I also pinged you three to the rugae section below. I will be speaking with SilkTork (who will be reviewing the article for GA) about a few things and then I will start the GA review. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Vaginal rugae article
Axl, Tom (LT) and Rivertorch, do you also think that a Vaginal rugae article is needed? I don't. It's nothing that is not already covered in this article and that cannot be covered in this article. It's like Barbara (WVS) creating a Vaginal opening article, a topic that also does not need its own page and was redirected here. In any case, I will be nominating this article for GA soon. No more waiting while Barbara (WVS) creates all these spin-off articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

If the Vaginal rugae article is significantly expanded, I won't mind it much. If not, I will be looking to merge any non-redundant and non-list content it has into this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

And for a recent merge discussion when it comes to female anatomy, see this discussion regarding the pudendal cleft. After we decided that the topic clearly did not needs its own article, it was merged. And that merge makes for a more comprehensive Vulva article and means that there is one less article taking editors from the main article when they are trying to read about the topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Could all of the details from Vaginal rugae be merged neatly into this article? I'm not sure, but it seems as if it might make this article more detailed than it ideally would be. Rivertorch FIREWATER  05:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The current state of it, which only amounts to two or three paragraphs (despite the dispersed style shown there) and is not much smaller or bigger than the "Anomalies and other health issues" section, could. It could easily blend with the Microanatomy section and other pieces of it could be moved to other sections if needed. For example, while that article currently states, "The cross section of the vagina normally forms a shape that resembles the letter 'H' due to these structures.", the Gross anatomy section of the Vagina article states, "The lateral walls, especially their middle area, are relatively more rigid. Because of this, the collapsed vagina has an H-shaped cross section." Look at the Human brain article, which I and others helped bring to GA. Start here and keeping scrolling down. You can see healthy subsections and some subsections within others. We didn't feel a need to break that material off and put it into other articles or create spin-off articles for all of that. Some of it already has subarticles, but still. What we have with the Human brain article is a fantastically comprehensive article, with little need to go to other articles for further detail unless wanting to read everything about the human brain or matters that affect it. And the article uses Template:TOC limit so that the table of contents is not overcrowded. I recently added that template to this article. But we'll see how big the Vaginal rugae article can grow. Doesn't mean that it will be holding up the GA review, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, interesting. Human brain is an article I've never gotten around to reading. I'll look forward to checking it out. If the rugae content can be tidily incorporated here, I guess that would be best. Rivertorch FIREWATER  21:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, Vaginal Rugae should not be an independent article, as it is more or less a descriptive term (ie rugae of the vagina) best described in relation to some other topic - either epithelium or here. I think Vaginal epithelium would be a good target if it were to be merged.--Tom (LT) (talk) 06:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Source the Anomalies and other health issues section
Barbara (WVS) needs to directly source parts of the "Anomalies and other health issues" section that are not directly sourced. I'm not taking the article to GA without that content being sourced. If Barbara (WVS) doesn't source it, I will. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping-I appreciate it. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉  08:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Barbara (WVS), so you don't plan to source your own material? It seems you don't. Okay, then. After I source this material for you and change the vaginal support material, the GA review will be beginning. More noted in the section below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Vaginal mucosa
With this edit, Barbara (WVS) removed "mucous membrane," stating, "The vaginal epithelium is not a mucous membrane. See Vaginal epithelium for references." I reverted, and here's why: Many reliable sources state that the vagina is lined with a mucous membrane or they state "vaginal mucosa." Our own Wikipedia article even currently lists "vaginal mucosa." The lead of that article also states, "Some mucous membranes secrete mucus." "Some," as in not "all." And to back up that claim, see this 2015 "Anatomy and Physiology for Health Professionals" source, from Jones & Bartlett Publishers, page 99, which states, "Many, but not all, secrete mucus. The urinary tract is an example of mucosae that do not secrete mucus." Judging by Vaginal epithelium, it seems that Barbara (WVS) is confusing mucous membrane with mucous gland.

Yes, the vagina does not have mucous glands. This doesn't stop sources from stating "vaginal mucosa" or stating that the vagina is lined with a mucous membrane. This 2004 "Encyclopedia of Family Health" source, from Marshall Cavendish, page 1269, states, "The vaginal lining is more like skin than a mucous membrane. It contains no mucus glands but is lubricated by mucus from the cervix and from two external glands called Bartholin's glands." It also states, "Mucous membranes line the respiratory tract from the nose to the lungs, the alimentary canal from the mouth to the anus, the reproductive tracts, and the urinary tract." This 2008 "Comprehensive Cytopathology E-Book source, from Elsevier Health Sciences, page 279, states, "The vagina is lined with a stratified squamous mucosa that is hormonally sensitive." This 2010 "Human Oral Mucosa: Development, Structure and Function" source, from John Wiley & Sons, page 120, states, "''The vagina consists of an internal mucous membrane with a lamina propria that contains numerous elastic fibers. These extend toward the external smooth muscle coat. The mucous membrane is continuous above with that lining the uterus." This 2012 "Pathology of the Vulva and Vagina" source (that is used in the Vagina article), from Springer Science & Business Media, page 6, states, "There are normally no glands in the vagina.''" It also states, "The cervix bulges into the upper vagina and the blind folds of the vaginal mucosa that surround the cervix are known as the fornices, being deepest posteriorly." This 2015 "Anatomy and Physiology - E-Book" source, from Elsevier Health Sciences, page 160, states of the non-keratinized stratified squamous epithelium, "Surface of the mucous membrane lining the mouth, esophagus, and vagina." Our own Wikipedia article states the same.

Axl, Rivertorch and Tom (LT), thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I can state with some certainty that not all mucous membranes secrete mucus. As to the vaginal epithelium, I really couldn't say, but I think the sources you've presented are persuasive. Rivertorch  FIREWATER  03:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * For anyone wanting more, reliable sources can easily be found by Googling "vaginal mucosa." One should look on regular Google, Google Books and Google Scholar. Not just one or the other. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * This additional 2017 "USMLE Step 1 Lecture Notes 2017: Anatomy" source, from Simon and Schuster, page 185, states, "The wall of the vagina has no glands and consists of 3 layers: the mucosa, a muscular layer, and an adventitia. The mucous found in the vagina comes from the glands of the uterine cervix." So again, no glands, but sources still state that the vagina is lined with a mucous membrane or mucosa. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I have spent some time looking for sources. It is difficult to find a source that clearly defines "mucous membrane". Perhaps the most useful source is Junqueira's Basic Histology. My interpretation is that "mucous membrane" is an epithelium that has mucus to protect it. This mucus is not necessarily produced by the epithelium itself; the mucus on the vaginal mucosa is produced by the cervix.


 * (Given that Simon & Schuster misspells "mucous", I am not confident in its reliability on this matter.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Axl, I get what you mean about defining "mucous membrane." But I have come across sources like this 2013 "Mosby's Fundamentals of Therapeutic Massage - E-Book" source, from Elsevier Health Sciences, page 240, which states, "Mucous membranes are thin tissues that protect most openings and passages in the human body. They are found in the mouth, inside the eyelids, in the nose and air passages leading to the lungs, in the stomach, along the digestive tract, in the vagina, in the anus, and inside the eye and the opening of the penis." But even though we know that the vagina itself is not secreting the mucus, that source also states that these membranes secrete mucus. This 2010 "Our Sexuality" source, from Cengage Learning, page 59, states, "The vagina contains three layers of tissue: mucous, muscle, and fibrous tissue. All these layers are richly endowed with blood vessels. The mucosa (myoo-KOH-suh) is the layer of mucous membrane that a woman feels when she inserts a finger inside her vagina. [...] Mucosa: Collective term for the mucous membranes; moist tissue that lines certain body areas such as the penile urethra, vagina, and mouth." This 2002 "Emergency Care and Transportation of the Sick and Injured" source, from Jones and Bartlett, page 9, states, "The various orifices (openings to the body)—including the mouth, nose, anus, and vagina—are not covered by skin. Orifices are lined with mucous membranes. Mucous membranes are quite similar to skin in that they provide a protective barrier against bacterial invasion."


 * Regardless of how the term is being defined, many reliable sources state "mucosa" for the vagina or "vaginal mucosa," as indicated by sources above in this section. If you want, I can list more stating "vaginal mucosa." There are not as many sources that state "mucous membrane" for the vagina, but enough do. For example, this 2016 "Principles and Labs for Fitness and Wellness" source, from Cengage Learning, page 547, states, "During vaginal, anal, or oral sexual contact, infected blood, semen, or vaginal fluids can penetrate the mucous membranes that line the vagina, the penis, the rectum, the mouth, or the throat." We could change the wording in the article to "mucosa," which is what it stated before. "Mucosa" is just another term for "mucous membrane," but, again, sources use "mucosa" more so for the vagina. I'll go ahead and change the text to that now. As for misspelling, I also see what you mean by mucus vs. mucous, but sometimes there are typos even in reliable sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * When considering the definitions of "mucous membrane" and "mucosa", I would only consider sources written by histologists/pathologists to be authoritative. Other medical specialties do not have adequate expertise in this matter. This is why we see blatant errors such as those in Mosby's Fundamentals and Simon & Schuster.


 * As well as Junquiera's Basic Histology, other books that I checked were Wheater's Functional Histology, Robbins Basic Pathology, Robbins Pathologic Basis of Disease, and Guyton & Hall Textbook of Medical Physiology.


 * "sometimes there are typos even in reliable sources." The presence of a typo in a source implicitly makes that source less reliable. It indicates a lack of rigour. As an aside, I notice spelling mistakes and grammatical errors all the time when I read. This includes "professionally" written documents: textbooks, journal papers, newspapers, novels. This detracts from my interest/enjoyment of the reading. (The best source is The Times newspaper. I rarely see an error there.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Axl, I understand what you mean. And typos detract from my interest/enjoyment of reading as well. I'm always interested in fixing my own typos. With my "19:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)" post above, I did stick with health, biology and anatomy sources. One of the sources is a cytopathology source, but cytopathology texts often do have good anatomical material. Regarding my second followup post, Simon and Schuster is an anatomy source. What error do you see in it other than the typo? Regarding the "Mosby's Fundamentals of Therapeutic Massage" source in my third followup post, the error that I immediately see (which I mentioned) is that it doesn't take the time to note that the vagina itself doesn't secrete mucus. Either way, there are anatomy/histology/biological sources that support "vaginal mucosa" or "the vagina is lined with a mucous membrane." And you stated above, "My interpretation is that 'mucous membrane' is an epithelium that has mucus to protect it. This mucus is not necessarily produced by the epithelium itself; the mucus on the vaginal mucosa is produced by the cervix." So it seems you are fine with the Vagina article stating "vaginal mucosa"? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * "What error do you see in it other than the typo?" Indeed! What about the errors that I haven't seen? I describe the error as "blatant" because even a non-specialist like me (I consider myself a non-specialist on this subject, although not a lay person) can see this error. How many more subtle errors are there that I haven't seen?


 * "So it seems you are fine with the Vagina article stating "vaginal mucosa"?" Yes. There are several suitable sources that describe the vagina having a mucosa. Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 14:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Possible lucunae
In a previous talk page discussion, an editor, acting as a third opinion suggested that 'possible lacunae' be addressed related to what I identified as missing or insufficient content in the article. Some discussion regarding improving the text on supportive structures exists but improving the content on this topic has yet to happen. In addition, I suggested that the 'development' section also be improved and updated. I intend to improve these sections and continue to prepare the article for its review for GA status. Comments are always welcome. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉  08:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Barbara (WVS), Talk:Vagina/Archive 11 shows the third opinion section. What "possible lacunae" material are you talking about? Yes, per Talk:Vagina/Archive 11 and Talk:Vagina/Archive 11, I will be proposing the addition of some vaginal support material; this will be to address the differences in what sources state. It will not be a lot, however, especially since you created the Vaginal support structures article, which is the place for significant detail. More than once, we have been waiting for you. We are not going to continue to wait. Telling us that you will be adding material to this article, after Axl, Rivertorch, you and myself agreed that substantial additions should first be discussed and analyzed, does not work. This article's GA review is not going to continue to be held up. And to be blunt, I'm stating now that if you add substantial material to this article without discussion, I will revert you and the discussion will turn out exactly like or similar to Talk:Vagina/Archive 11, Talk:Vagina/Archive 11 and Talk:Vagina/Archive 11. In fact, it's already like those discussions, since what you are now proposing is not clear and I am objecting to you adding substantial content. What I am focused on at the moment is some of your "Anomalies and other health issues" content being unsourced and covering the conflicting material on vaginal support structures. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Define substantial. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉  21:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Barbara (WVS), read Talk:Vagina/Archive 11 again. We can see there that editors were not clear on what you were proposing and that editors wanted to review the content before it was added. I stated, "It is not hard to simply include things from the draft that are not already mentioned in the 'Anomalies and other health issues' section, and to not go overboard with that material." You stated, "Also, 'overboard' is a little vague. But I suppose there is some subjectivity in the matter." I commented further. Eventually, we wound up with the following discussions: Talk:Vagina/Archive 11, Talk:Vagina/Archive 11 and Talk:Vagina/Archive 11. Do you want to go through all of that again, except with different content? I mean, by proposing content first, we will be going through it again in a way, but it will at least be without edit warring. Simply propose content on the talk first for others to weigh in on, and do not add it to the article unless it has consensus. I will be doing the same. Axl did not suggest that you specifically not add significant detail. He was speaking to everyone. He stated, "In the interest of moving forward, may I suggest that everyone refrain from large-scale editing of the article. Even single sentence edits should ideally be discussed on this talk page first so that we can establish a clear consensus." You stated, "I concur and think this is a great idea. Thanks for stepping in." Substantial means "of considerable importance, size, or worth." What it means is common sense. Let's not be silly. A substantial edit obviously means any non-WP:Minor edit (such as a significant change to a sentence, article setup, or the addition of one or more paragraphs). No one is trying to stop grammar fixes (which Rivertorch has been taking care of), Wikilink additions or See also additions. And just so we are clear, Good article criteria states, "It is not stable due to edit warring on the page." That is what I mean about keeping the article stable. No edit warring. Doing what Axl suggested avoids that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I must respectfully disagree. When I agreed to submitting each sentence for 'approval', that was specifically for the anomalies content. Edit warring is something to be avoided, certainly-but most often it is not me. No where, no time, and in the past thousands of content contributions I have made, only here have I had to submit each sentence for approval. That is not how WP works. I never mark any edit as minor. I would suggest that you do your best to avoid editing warring. I also have never been threatened with having my edits reverted except by you. Usually, if someone doesn't like an edit, they change it. How is the GA being held up? The decision to go forward is not up to me or even you! There is also no urgency in prepping the article for GA review. We need to work together-threatening to revert future edits is confusing, non-collaborative, and hostile. Still, Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉  22:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Barbara (WVS), Axl's suggestion was not simply in reference to the anomalies content. You stated, "Edit warring is something to be avoided, certainly-but most often it is not me." In the case of this article, there has not been much edit warring, but you edit warred with me over content that editors were clear should not have been added without discussion. Time and again, there have been issues with content you have added to this article, which would have been resolved had you sought to discuss first, and now you want to add more content without discussion. You stated, "only here have I had to submit each sentence for approval. That is not how WP works." It has yet to be the case that you have had to submit each sentence for approval. You don't propose one sentence. You propose a lot of content. And, as you have stated more than once, you commonly do not take the time to discuss matters on article talk pages. To you, talk page discussion is a waste of time; your words. And in contrast to your assertion about discussing content beforehand, that is how Wikipedia works. WP:Consensus, one of our core policies, is partly about that -- discussion first. I've been in enough talk page discussions to know that editors at times agree to discuss content before it is added. And in the case of keeping an article stable for GA, it is essential. You have been reverted plenty, and not just at this article, because you did not take the time to use whatever article talk page except to post sources on it.


 * You stated, "Usually, if someone doesn't like an edit, they change it." Yes, and a revert is likely to happen afterward. Discussion is also likely to happen afterward. Discussion beforehand can prevent that revert. I reverted you on the anomalies material twice, explaining my position here on the talk page -- a position others agreed with. You reverted me twice, insisting on keeping your material. Reverting was a waste of time. As for how GA is being upheld, SilkTork said it could begin when I was ready for it to begin. I sought him out, and he is the reviewer. You are the only one acting like the article is not ready for review and that we need all these additions and subarticles you have been busy with. You speak of working together, but you have repeatedly failed to work matters out with editors here on the talk page first. The "anomalies" case was one of the rare cases in which you did, and that was only after others made it clear that you should stop adding your content without review. Below, I've started a section specifically about not adding substantial content without first discussing it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Discuss substantial content first before adding it
As seen at Talk:Vagina/Archive 11, Axl stated, "In the interest of moving forward, may I suggest that everyone refrain from large-scale editing of the article. Even single sentence edits should ideally be discussed on this talk page first so that we can establish a clear consensus. Thanks."

I agree with this approach since it helps tackle issues with additions, possible WP:Edit warring, and keeps the article stable for the upcoming GA review. So that's two editors that agree with this approach thus far, while in the section above, Barbara (WVS) says she disagrees. Tom (LT), Rivertorch, Doc James and Johnuniq, do you also agree with this approach? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Not unreasonable. Expecially with the topic as controversial as it is. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's editing policy, general best practice, and my own preference is to keep articles open for editing, without imposing restrictions on any editor(s). Reverting good faith material is behaviour that Wikipedia discourages because it can be unsettling, restrictive (timid and anti-WP:Bold), and offensive. Reverting good faith, sourced material can lead to edit wars, and is against policy. However, the essay WP:BRD has gained traction in the community, which allows editors to revert good faith, sourced material without discussion, putting the onus on the bold editor to then discuss and gain consensus. While BRD is used and supported by some members of the community, it is not policy, and is not best practice. There is sometimes a palpable tension on Wikipedia between editors who have worked for a long time on an article, and have been working it to what they feel is an ideal state, and editors who come later and make potential improvements that significantly change the article. While policy and best practice does encourage and favour the bold addition of sourced material, there is a consensus that in certain circumstances care must be taken, and there are guidelines to cover this in the editing policy. There is no defined list of the circumstances in which care must be taken and editors seek out consensus before adding material, but if there is conflict and editing warring going on, that is generally seen as a situation requiring care; and where an article has become unstable, then fully protecting it until the conflict has been resolved is possible, and sometimes desirable - and if there is a deliberate ignoring of care, consideration, and consensus by one or more users, then blocking to prevent repeated disruption. This article is not at the point of needing full protection or blocking, however there is a lot of tension, and a lot of counter-productive personal comments, which suggests that protection may be needed in the near future if things continue as they are. I don't think we're even at the point where individual warnings need to be issued, but given the tension here, it would be remiss of me not to point out that given the circumstances anyone repeatedly adding or reverting significant content without first gaining consensus is being unhelpful and potentially disruptive. Given the situation I fully support an agreement that consensus is found before making significant edits to the article. Significant editing is generally seen as adding or removing factual content including images and statistics, or altering the layout or headings in the article. Reverting vandalism, or making simple copy-edits or minor corrections, would be acceptable. There is already a page notice suggesting that "it is recommended that you consider using the article's talk page to gain consensus before making any substantive changes", so this understanding has been in place since at least 2011. I suggest that in order to avoid potential doubt and possible conflict that consideration is given to appointing a neutral editor to make the agreed edits. And I would suggest that we start the GA review sooner rather than later in order to release some of the tension, and to get the ball rolling. While some reviewers like to have an article fully ready before a review starts, I am much more relaxed about such matters. I would ask that once the review starts that all comments in the review are content based, and that people avoid all personal comments unless they are positive and supportive (such as "thanks for doing that"). I have found that what helps is to type out all the things that you want to say in your anger and frustration, then to edit it down to something neutral and inoffensive before clicking Publish changes. That tends to get it out of your system, but keeps the peace. SilkTork (talk) 12:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Barbara, you already know that any editing of this article by you will be scrutinised by Flyer22. Furthermore, there is a significant chance of your edit being reverted, with a call for further discussion on this Talk page. This process generates more animosity between you and Flyer22. I recommend that you avoid this friction by proposing your edits on this Talk page to seek consensus before publishing in the article itself. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 14:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Good points, indeed. I take issue with threats of promised reversions by FR22 of any content added to this article. If threats to revert my (undrafted) content exists, I am puzzled why this generates animosity on my part. Check the times between edits if you want to gauge animosity. If the finger points one way, that is certainly fuel to generate more heat. Best regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉  12:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Barbara (WVS), you going on about adding content to the article whenever you want, given the issues that have arisen with your editing, including you not listening and me having to explain why you are wrong (often by providing sources), and/or you not listening until others finally weigh in and tell you to stop, is what has caused animosity. Never mind the animosity that already existed between us. And all of that is what Axl means. And it's why I have made it clear that I will revert any substantial edit you make to the article if it's made without allowing editors to discuss it first. We should not have to let your content sit in the article before removing it. WP:ONUS, which you continue not to acknowledge, doesn't work like that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * SilkTork, I appreciate you weighing in after Barbara (WVS) and I left a message on your talk page, but reverting good faith, sourced material is not against policy. WP:Editing policy doesn't state that. It does have a WP:CAUTIOUS section, though, which states, in part, "Be cautious about making a major change to an article. Prevent edit warring by discussing such edits first on the article's talk page. One editor's idea of an improvement may be another editor's idea of a desecration." As seen at Talk:Vagina/Archive 11, Barbara (WVS) and I went over reverting before. As seen at Talk:Vagina/Archive 11, we went over it again. I have not reverted her or asked her to discuss first to be mean or anything of the sort (and I know you are not suggesting that). I have reverted her and asked her to discuss first because substantial changes are likely to be contested and because more than once her material has had errors in it, has consisted of too much detail and/or needed copyediting. In the discussion where Axl suggested that we discuss before adding material, it was after Barbara (WVS) had added substantial material to the article after editors were clear that a lot of detail on that topic should not be added. Instead of taking the time to work things out with us, she added even more content than she had left us to review. And what she had left us to review was not clear. Look at what Rivertorch stated in that discussion. We had no idea what she was proposing to add. And in the section above, it's not clear what she is proposing to add either. This is a very important article, as you know, and we should get things right. We should be wanting to get things right. Given that Barbara (WVS) has been wrong more once, it is odd that she would not want to take the time to make sure that her content is right before having it added to the article. Given that editors have been concerned about the level of detail she is prone to add, it is odd that Barbara (WVS) would not want to propose specific material to see if other editors agree with the level of detail she wants to add. I noted that I would be doing the same -- proposing content here first. Indeed, this is not simply one editor's article, which is why I actually take the time to engage others here and see what they think. Per the WP:ONUS policy, the onus is on Barbara (WVS) when it comes to content she wants to add. It is not on us for rejecting her content. Thank you for understanding that this is a situation requiring care and for supporting an agreement that consensus is found before making significant edits to the article. As for a neutral editor to add the content, although Rivertorch has a positive history with me, he recently acted as that editor. Rivertorch, will you continue to act as that editor? SilkTork, I'm guessing we won't rely on a neutral editor to add things during the GA review, though? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Flyer22 Reborn, I'll do what I can to help and will try to stay neutral. Given the history here, I support the idea of seeking advance consensus for non-minor edits during the run-up to GA review. I should say that I don't agree with SilkTork that BRD isn't best practice. I have certainly called it that, more than once, and I think that's exactly what it is. It does seem a bit unusual for it to be employed among experienced editors outside certain highly contentious topic areas, but I have employed it in such contexts before and I think that doing so is consistent with the Wikipedia ideal of focusing on the edit rather than the editor. <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  05:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * :-) I think I may write an essay called BDA - "Bold, discuss, agree", because while BRD has traction in the community, it includes a process that is not in line with Wikipedia's founding principles, nor in line with policy: reverting good faith, sourced content. The two parts of it that are good are Bold and Discuss - the essay was written as a guide on how to break through a deadlock on a page which was being stewarded a little too closely. The aim of the essay was to gently break though the deadlock into positive editing. Where it has gone wrong is that people use BRD to justify the Revert part. That wasn't the intention, and still isn't. The essay is intended to deal with the situation where a user has been bold, and someone has reverted their good faith, sourced contribution. For that, it is useful. But ideally we shouldn't have to deal with reverts in the first place.
 * If we are looking at this specific situation, I would say that Barbara has much to offer this article though her access to sources as Visiting Scholar with the University of Pittsburgh; however, it was unhelpful to insert the contested material against consensus. Some degree of collegiate approach to editing this article is advisable in this situation, because I feel that everyone here wants the same thing: to improve the vagina article, but if editing is left completely open then friction will inhibit the positive progress. If we have no addition or subtraction of material without consensus then the article will move forward positively. If people insert or remove material without first gaining consensus, then progress will be difficult and unpleasant. SilkTork (talk) 10:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * SilkTork, WP:BRD has traction in the community because it can and often does work. I watch that page and have helped form it. It's no longer an essay and is now a supplement page. The reason that reverting good faith, sourced content is not against any policy is because good faith, sourced content doesn't mean that it's an article improvement. Just look at all of the medical articles that Doc James edits and see all of the good faith, sourced content he reverts. Content being good faith and sourced doesn't mean that it should remain in the article. And per WP:ONUS, it should not have to remain in the article until the reverter justifies its exclusion. It's up to the one adding it to justify its inclusion. That stated, I agree that WP:BRD has been used abusively at times. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely it has, as have any number of guidelines and policies. Even the core content policies can be abused through wikilawyering or POINTy edits. I'm really happy to read SilkTork's expansion on his earlier comment because it gives me a different perspective on BRD and the whole question of reverting. Nevertheless, I think that you, Flyer22 Reborn, hit the nail on the head when you noted that good-faith, sourced content doesn't necessarily improve an article. Sometimes the newly added content cites sources that aren't reliable; that is potentially even worse than unsourced content because it can provide the illusion that a claim is verifiable when it really isn't. Other times, the addition constitutes undue weight, which warrants removal as an NPOV violation. Probably the most common instance that finds me reverting good-faith edits is when the writing is so poorly crafted that I can't figure out how to fix it. This happens a lot, and I make no apology for reverting when it does. It is damaging to the reputation of what's supposed to be a serious encyclopedia to leave garbled prose in place. Better to remove it and let the user who added it either try again or (preferably) explain on the talk page. <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  03:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Reply from Barbara
I believe it is possible to comply with the majority of comments from editors above and will do my best to edit accordingly. I would like those who review my proposed content to be as specific as possible when asking me to make changes to content I would like to add. An even better solution would be for other editors to actually edit the proposed content itself to their liking on this talk page instead of stroking their chins while they ponder whether they want to approve it or not. It is a little fatiguing to have to prance out each proposed revision like a 4H kid in front of a judge at the local county fair.

This has not been a collaborative effort but more of a sorority-like hazing which is impeding the improvement of the article. I find it difficult to assess statements like:
 * it's too long
 * it's too detailed
 * it's not worth mentioning
 * you forgot to mention (rare)
 * it already exists
 * it needs to put into another (non-existent) article
 * You forgot to put in information on a or (when information on a is in the article but they just didn't see it)

I've gone above and beyond just the effort to improve this article but to improve this topic as a whole. When I was first confronted with resistance in my efforts to improve this article, I decided one way to diffuse 'tension' was to actually go ahead and create those non-existent articles that I was told could contain the content and references that did not belong in this article. These are/were:


 * Vaginal tumors
 * Squamous-cell carcinoma of the vagina
 * Vaginal cysts
 * Vaginal rugae
 * Vaginal trauma
 * Vaginal melanoma
 * Pubovaginal muscle
 * Vaginal epithelium
 * Vaginal support structures
 * Mucometrocolpos
 * Vaginal anomalies
 * Urogenital fistulas
 * Urethrovaginal fistula
 * Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System

Even these food faith contributions were criticized and proposed for merger.

As for those instances where I was 'wrong'; In deference to all talk page readers I decided that I would rather not contradict FR22 or even Doc James with about 15 high-quality references to 'prove' that I was not wrong because that would have tripled the content of this talk page. Seriously, could we have a limit placed on discussions on this talk page? It will soon deserve its own server. If beginning the GA review will relieve the eyestrain of reading unnecessary talk page descriptions of my (boring) editing activities that would be very welcome. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉  12:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Barbara (WVS), you still do not get it. No one is trying to haze you. This is not a college. Nor is it a high school with cliques. It is an encyclopedia where people collaborate and edit. Or edit and collaborate. A part of collaboration means discussing. Why is it so difficult for you to propose content before adding it? I have been editing Wikipedia since 2007 and have been through many cases where proposing content before adding it was employed, especially for very important and/or contentious topics such as this one; I've employed it. Doc James has employed it. And the WP:CAUTIOUS policy suggests it. Collaborating does not mean that you get to add whatever you want and your content gets to stay and that editors should simply fix it up and/or clean up after you. If content is worth preserving, then we will preserve it. But this doesn't mean that all of your content gets to stay. The truth of the matter is that some of your edits have been errors or your content has had errors in it and has needed cleaning up, which is why it is a good idea to have others review your content before it is added. You stated, "As for those instances where I was 'wrong'; In deference to all talk page readers I decided that I would rather not contradict FR22 or even Doc James with about 15 high-quality references to 'prove' that I was not wrong because that would have tripled the content of this talk page." Are you kidding me? Where in the world was I wrong? Where in the world was Doc James wrong? Or Axl? All of the high-quality sources available could not help you in the case where you (as Bfpage) stubbornly insisted that the anus is a part of the vulva. All of the high-quality sources available could not help you in the keratinized case. All of the high-quality sources available could not help you in the "Bartholin's cyst blocking the vaginal opening" case. All of the high-quality sources available could not help you be correct on the aspect above. This is what I mean by you not listening. Commonly, you think you know better than people with more knowledge on subjects than you do, even sometimes blindly following what one source states when other good sources state differently. Sometimes you misread and/or misinterpret sources, which, as I've stated before, is one of the things I am concerned about with your edits. You stated, "I would like those who review my proposed content to be as specific as possible when asking me to make changes to content I would like to add." You should first be very clear about what it is you want to add. The proposed content should be in a draft or on this talk page and what you want to add should be clear from looking at that draft or the text on the talk page.


 * As for proposing your articles for mergers, I have not officially proposed any for merging. As seen in the discussion above, I have queried the need for some of these spin-offs article you have created. And this is because you commonly do  create unnecessary spin-off articles. A good number of articles you create are topics that can be covered in existing articles. Sometimes you even create list articles, which would be better covered in an existing article. So far, the Vaginal tumors article is a list article. Yes, because you are often creating unnecessary articles, it looks to me that you are simply trying to add to your article count, as if that makes you look like a more prolific editor and/or that you are "here to build an encyclopedia" (one of your favorite comments when replying to me) more than others are. For example, even though we already have a Müllerian agenesis article, you created the Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome article; Doc James had to take care of that. Recently, instead of building on the Hymenotomy article and preserving its edit history, you created the Hymenectomy article and redirected "hymenotomy" there. Unnecessary article creations that simply added to your article count. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I will limit my comments to those that will improve this article. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉  23:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed content
Relevant content about Vaginal cysts should be added to the clinical section of this article:


 * Various types of vaginal cysts can develop on the surface of the vaginal epithelium or in deeper layers of the vagina and can grow to be as large as 7cm. Often, they are an incidental finding during a routine pelvic examination. Vaginal cysts can mimic other structures that protrude from the vagina such as a rectocele and cystocele. Some of these cysts can be present include: Müllerian cysts, Gartner's duct cysts, and squamous inclusion cysts. A vaginal cyst is most likely to develop in women between the ages of thirty to forty-years-old. It is estimated that 1 out of 200 women have a vaginal cyst. 


 * It should be placed in the "Anomalies and other health issues" section, right before the Bartholin's cyst material. I'm thinking that all of the cyst material in that section should be kept together -- in one paragraph. Your proposed content makes the Bartholin's cyst material look too detailed. So we might want to now trim the Bartholin's cyst material I added. If it's felt that it's best that the Bartholin's cyst material continue to be its own paragraph, we can do that. Also, your "Some of these cysts can be present include" wording should be changed to "Some of the cysts that can be present include".


 * On a side note, in the section immediately above this one, I questioned the need for the Vaginal tumors article. And I see that another editor has well. Doc James, you might also want to review whether a merge needs to happen there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The Bartholin Gland cyst is not a vaginal cyst. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉  21:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And I did not say that it is. Flow-wise, however, and disregarding classification, there is not a need for the Bartholin's cyst material to be a separate paragraph unless it's felt that the current Bartholin's cyst material is too detailed to be stuck with the vaginal cysts material or unless we think that readers will conclude that a Bartholin's cyst is a vaginal cyst. Just like we cover different cancers in one paragraph for different articles on Wikipedia, we can cover cyst material in one paragraph. Depending on the source, a Bartholin's cyst may not be categorized as a vaginal cyst, but it still affects the vagina, which is why the sources I've included in the article on the matter thus far state what they do. So all we need to do is begin the paragraph with a different topic sentence. We could state "Cysts may affect the vagina or its opening." Or not even mention the "or its opening" part. After that, we can go into vaginal cysts and then the Bartholin's cyst. That is how we keep from making unnecessary paragraphs or winding up with a very small paragraph. I certainly am no fan of single-sentence paragraphs, and neither is MOS:Paragraphs. Notice that this 2014 "Gynecologic Ultrasound: A Problem-Based Approach E-Book" source, from Elsevier Health Sciences, page 209, discusses Bartholin's cysts right along with vaginal cysts. It states, " Vaginal wall cysts tend to be embryologic in nature and often asymptomatic. These cysts include Gartner's duct cysts, Müllerian cysts, epithelial inclusion cysts (ectopic epithelium), urethral diverticula, and cysts resulting from a blocked gland Bartholin duct cyst) or obstructed Müllerian anomaly." The source categorizes the Bartholin's duct cyst as a type of vaginal cyst, including when mentioning a study. And it states that despite sources relaying that the Bartholin's cyst is of vulvar rather than vaginal origin. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I actually really, really like what you have written above-I underlined it. Can't we just go with your text? ..except the statement about the obstructed anomaly diverticula (not a cyst)? Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉  00:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ooops, I mean we can go with a paraphrased version of the above. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉
 * But what about Bartholin's cysts not being vaginal cysts (at least depending on the source)? This 2009 "Robboy's Pathology of the Female Reproductive Tract" source, from Elsevier Health Sciences, page 117, states, "Bartholin duct cysts and mucinous cysts of vulvar origin are often misinterpreted as being of vaginal origin." I guess we could clarify the origin aspect. I'm also wondering how much I should cut the Bartholin's cyst material I added if going with the piece you underlined. I think some of the Bartholin's cyst material currently in the article should stay. I'd prefer all of it stay, but I'm obviously open to cutting it. Let's wait and see what Axl and Rivertorch have to state. River will be implementing the text anyway. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems all right in one paragraph. They're all cysts. I'd suggest mentioning the Bartholin's after the other ones. I'm not sure how easy it will be to paraphrase that one sentence without its being too close to the original, but if someone wants to give it a shot... <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  05:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, the information currently included about the Bartholin duct cyst is too detailed. I think that a single sentence should be adequate. This should be at the end of a paragraph about the "true" vaginal cysts.


 * While the Bartholin duct cyst is technically in the vestibule of the vulva (which is confirmed in Baggish & Karram Atlas of Pelvic Anatomy & Gynecologic Surgery, fourth edition, page 857: "Within the vestibule, the most common cyst is the Bartholin duct cyst"), lay readers might reach this article when seeking information about it. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 11:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay - all good comments. Can another editor propose a rewrite of the content that I drafted above? Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉  12:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay, everyone. Let me know what you think of the following: "Cysts may affect the vagina. Various types of vaginal cysts can develop on the surface of the vaginal epithelium or in deeper layers of the vagina and can grow to be as large as 7cm. Often, they are an incidental finding during a routine pelvic examination. Vaginal cysts can mimic other structures that protrude from the vagina such as a rectocele and cystocele. Some of the cysts that can be present include: Müllerian cysts, Gartner's duct cysts, and epidermoid cysts. A vaginal cyst is most likely to develop in women between the ages of thirty to forty-years-old. It is estimated that 1 out of 200 women have a vaginal cyst. The Bartholin's cyst is of vulvar rather than vaginal origin, but it presents as a lump at the vaginal opening. It is more common in younger women and is usually without symptoms, but it can be painful if an abscess forms, block the entrance to the vulval vestibule if large, and impede on walking or cause painful sexual intercourse. "


 * I changed "squamous inclusion cysts" to "epidermoid cysts" because the latter covers the former. "Squamous inclusion cyst" is also sometimes referred to as an "epidermal inclusion cyst," but the Epidermoid cyst article currently notes an issue with the term "epidermal inclusion cyst." I don't know if any of the sources state that it's an issue, or if an editor simply added their own "it's an issue" wording. The Vaginal cysts article also notes that "an epithelial inclusion cyst is also referred to as epidermal inclusion cyst or squamous inclusion cyst." Right now, the Epidermoid cyst article doesn't mention the vagina, but it should. Anyway, I will redirect "squamous inclusion cyst" and "epithelial inclusion cyst" to the Epidermoid cyst article. When it comes to the Bartholin's cyst material, I cut the "If the cyst becomes infected" and "it can be protocol to determine whether a neoplasm is a factor for women over 40 reporting a cyst" parts. The line would be one sentence, as Axl suggested, instead of two, but I felt that we should note that the cyst is of vulvar rather than vaginal origin. If you think it's best that we use your source for that "vulvar origin" piece, Axl, just let me know and I'll replace the Robboy source. Just let me know the year and isbn for the source (and the URL if you have that). Also, Axl and Rivertorch, if you'd rather that I stop pinging you, let me know. The pinging is mainly to get Axl's attention because I'm not sure if he'll see, or be there for, certain things since he's not on Wikipedia as often as the rest of us.


 * On a side note: The reason that the "Gynecologic Ultrasound" source above may have included "urethral diverticula" is because, like this UCLA Health source states... "A urethral diverticula is described as a cystic structure that is adjacent to the urethra." Also, this RSNA source states, "The majority of urethral diverticula are located in the middle third of the urethra and involve the posterolateral wall (Fig 1) (9). The most classic finding at physical examination—a tender cystic lesion located in the anterior vaginal wall—is encountered in one-half of patients with urethral diverticulum (10)." "Cystic" can also mean "relating to the urinary bladder or the gallbladder." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Update: At the Epidermoid cyst article, with this sourced edit (and followup edits to tweak and fix typos), I noted the epidermoid cyst as a type of vaginal cyst. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

There are definitely some terminology issues. For example, this The Merck Manuals source distinguishes between inclusion cysts and epidermal cysts, while this source I used at the Epidermoid cyst article states "epidermoid (inclusion cyst)" when speaking of vaginal cysts. There are also sources relaying confusion regarding the sebaceous cyst, stating that it's not a true epidermoid cyst. But our own Wikipedia Sebaceous cyst article currently lists "epidermoid cyst" as a type of sebaceous cyst. That stated, the Sebaceous cyst article does note that an epidermoid cyst is not a true sebaceous cyst. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I heartily endorse the above version! Nicely done. There are confounding definitions of cysts AND tumors, I've discovered. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉  20:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Flyer22 Reborn, I am happy with your suggested text. The information on Bartholin's cyst in contained in two sentences, but it is fine.


 * I am happy for you to continue pinging me. It is useful for me because it shows that you want a specific response from me, so I am more inclined to comment. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 21:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Pinging is a good idea, especially if I haven't edited the talk page in at least a couple of days. My copyedit of the latest proposed text is below. I've used boldface and strikethrough to indicate changes. Except for removing the first sentence, which I think is superfluous, all changes are pretty minor. (I've removed refs and wikilinks but will restore them before adding to the article.) Here it is:
 * " Cysts may affect the vagina. Various types of vaginal cysts can develop on the surface of the vaginal epithelium or in deeper layers of the vagina and can grow to be as large as 7cm. Often, they are an incidental finding during a routine pelvic examination. Vaginal cysts can mimic other structures that protrude from the vagina such as a rectocele and cystocele. Some of the c Cysts that can be present include : Müllerian cysts, Gartner's duct cysts, and epidermoid cysts. A vaginal cyst is most likely to develop in women between the ages of thirty to forty-years-old 30 to 40. It is estimated that 1 out of 200 women have has a vaginal cyst. The Bartholin's cyst is of vulvar rather than vaginal origin, but it presents as a lump at the vaginal opening. It is more common in younger women and is usually without symptoms, but it can be painful cause pain if an abscess forms, block the entrance to the vulval vestibule if large, and impede on walking or cause painful sexual intercourse."
 * Happy to add, if there's consensus. <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  11:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with your proposal, River. I'm sure that the others are as well since your changes are copyedits (grammatical tweaks) except for the first sentence. I didn't find the first sentence superfluous (and still don't). Like I stated, I used it as a topic sentence so that it would open up the paragraph to the Bartholin's cyst material and make it so that the paragraph does not seem like it is solely about vaginal cysts or about vaginal cysts with Bartholin's cyst material thrown in ("thrown in" when it comes to those who know the difference, that is). But as we can see from one of the sources I provided above and this MedlinePlus one, the Bartholin's cyst may be considered a vaginal cyst depending on the source anyway, and I think think the "is of vulvar rather than vaginal origin" piece helps tie the Bartholin's cyst material to the vaginal cyst material. So I'm fine with you cutting the aforementioned sentence. Also, I should have spotted the incorrect "have" piece. Don't forget to re-add the Wikilinks when you add the material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, it looks good, Rivertorch. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 00:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I like it a lot! Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉  13:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * OK, I added it. Sorry for the delay. @Flyer22 Reborn: You're right, the first sentence isn't superfluous because the Bartholin's content is in the same paragraph. <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  14:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Your Merck source is about the vulva, not the vagina. Regarding the nomenclature of cysts - It has been quite difficult to pull this information together and Iztwoz has helped to help address this in the Vaginal cysts article. Also, before you make changes about some of these cysts, you have to make sure you are not switching out the name of one cyst that is actually a separate type of cyst. That is not much of a problem in this article, but it could be. Better sources for epidermoid cyst are:
 * Zimmern, Francois Haab, Christopher R. Chapple (2006). Vaginal Surgery for Incontinence and Prolapse. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 271. ISBN 1852339128.
 * Toy, Turan; Yazici, Fatma (2011). "Female Genital Tract Cysts". European Journal of General Medicine. 9: 21–26.
 * "Vulvar Inclusion and Epidermal Cysts - Gynecology and Obstetrics - Merck Manuals Professional Edition". Merck Manuals Professional Edition.
 * Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉  16:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Barbara (WVS), I am aware that the Merck source is about the vulva. It is still taking the time to define what inclusion cysts are and what epidermal cysts are, and states, "Inclusion cysts may also develop in the vagina." And as for changing "squamous inclusion cysts" to "epidermoid cysts," I clearly explained why I did above. I noted interchangeabilty of terms and also that the Vaginal cysts article notes that "an epithelial inclusion cyst is also referred to as epidermal inclusion cyst or squamous inclusion cyst." In that article, you've provided a 2002 "Gynecology: Integrating Conventional, Complementary, and Natural Alternative Therapy" source supporting that. It is also known that epidermoid cysts may be referred to as "epidermal inclusion cysts." After I noted what I did above about the term epidermal inclusion cyst in the Epidermoid article, Iztwoz made this edit to that article. Above, I also provided a source supporting "epidermoid cyst." This source is the "Vaginal Surgery for Incontinence and Prolapse" source you have just cited as a "better source." I also added that source and the "An epidermoid cyst is a type of vaginal cyst that can develop in the vagina." text to the Epidermoid cyst article. We've already been clear that cyst terminology is not always consistent. And it's already been made clear times over that I review various sources on matters and never just one for content. The Merck source was just one example of me doing that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * @Barbara (WVS): I'm in no way objecting to your edit if the sentence you removed was an undue generalization, but I'm a little unclear as to why you waited till it went live before noting a problem. The proposed content has been sitting here for days, and you "heartily endorse[d]" it five days ago and said you "like it a lot" only yesterday. <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  03:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Given the circumstances, and what was agreed, I am also concerned about that. As a non-expert I am relying on those who are experts to make uncontroversial and evidence based edits to the article. Barbara (WVS) - please revert your edit, and come to this talkpage with an evidence based rationale for your removal of information cited to a reliable source. This is clearly a debatable point, and one that must be openly discussed. SilkTork (talk) 10:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * My sincere apologies, and I have restored the sentence I deleted. I erred when I heartily endorsed the content and was probably was too quick to delete. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Is it also, then, necessary (for me) to gain consensus for the removal of a sentence? That seems overly burdensome. I am working very hard to edit within the context of consensus and actually believed that correcting an error would be viewed as a good thing. I will submit my edits to other editors for their approval but it appears that my good faith edits, even to correct an error, are viewed as not being in good faith. To me, it was a simple oversight and a mistake to 'approve' the drafted content and that other editors would be glad that I did so. In the future, I will proof the proposed content more carefully but I still ask for understanding that indeed, I make errors, and it shouldn't be regarded as something belligerent or pointy. There are still errors in the article and I can see that it will take some time to present these for discussion. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉  11:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Barbara (WVS), I didn't imply you'd done anything belligerent or pointy, and I don't see any such implication in SilkTork's comment either. And no one questioned that you were editing in good faith, as far as I can tell. I asked a question because I wanted to know something, and you've answered it. Thank you. Moving forward, I'll echo SilkTork's question: what exactly is your rationale for removing the sentence? Your edit summary suggested there's only one type of cyst that's "more common" in women of that age. Do sources disagree or what? <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b>  FIREWATER  13:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Barbara (WVS) stated, "There are still errors in the article and I can see that it will take some time to present these for discussion." Do point out what errors you think are in the article. Since I wrote most of the article (even with you expanding it) and my edits are clearly and usually supported by easily accessible URL links, usually to Google Books, where people can see that what I have added is directly supported by the sources, I am skeptical when you refer to mistakes unless they are your mistakes. Sources stating different things are not mistakes, and when the literature conflicts or needs clarification, I make sure to present this in my text (such as noting the Bartholin's cyst being of vulvar origin). Do feel free to remove errors. SilkTork, Barbara (WVS) is not an expert; she is a layperson and has stated so before. Like you, she is simply going by sources. I've noted before that I don't discuss my education or professions on Wikipedia, but I have preexisting, thorough knowledge of topics such as this (the Vagina) and I then have to find sources to support what I already know. As for vaginal cysts specifically, they are uncommon, as noted by the "Robboy's Pathology of the Female Reproductive Tract" source I listed above. The source also states, "Cysts derived from müllerian epithelium arise from patches of vaginal adenosis and are lined by tuboendometrial- or muci- nous-type epithelia, sometimes with metaplastic squamous epithelium. They are seen most frequently in young women who were exposed prenatally to diethylstilbestrol (see below), but occur rarely in older women." The source goes on to note other cysts, but mentions how uncommon/rare they are, and it does not talk about age ranges. This 2006 "Glass' Office Gynecology" source, from Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, page 125, states, "Vaginal wall cysts are most common in the thirties and forties, and in most cases, an accurate diagnosis can be made on history and physical examination." As you can see, it matches what Barbara (WVS) removed. It also mentions the Bartholin's cyst, and, like the Vagina article, focuses on the Bartholin's cyst occurring in younger women. There isn't much out there about the age ranges for a vaginal cyst; there's more about the age range for the Bartholin's cyst. But this dovemed.com source, states, "Vaginal Cysts are commonly seen between the ages 20-75 years; a peak age range is observed in the 4th decade (30-40 years)." And, yes, I'm obviously aware that dovemed.com is a poor medical source. Similar to that source, however, this "Gynecologic Ultrasound: A Problem-Based Approach E-Book" source that I cited above states the following age range when speaking of a study on vaginal cysts: "Mean patient age was 35 years (range 20 to 75)." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * All right, so where are we with this? The sentence has been restored to the article. The text seems to flow equally well with or without it. Sourcing aside, is it a net positive to have it in the article? Is it important enough? <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  05:39, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I still would like the sentence that I deleted/restored removed from the article. Vaginal cysts affect all age groups:
 * Vaginitis emphysematosa that affects women 42 to 65 years old . Kramer, K.; Tobón, H. (August 1987). "Vaginitis emphysematosa". Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine. 111 (8): 746–749. ISSN 0003-9985. PMID 3632288.


 * Mullaerian cysts can be congenital but are usually found in women ages 20-65 years old .Ayaprakash, Sheela; M, Lakshmidevi; G, Sampath Kumar (2011-07-04). "A rare case of posterior vaginal wall cyst". BMJ Case Reports. 2011: bcr0220113804. doi:10.1136/bcr.02.2011.3804. ISSN 1757-790X. PMID 22693290.


 * Cysts can be congenital . Dey, Pranab (2017-02-06). Essentials of Gynecologic Pathology. JP Medical Ltd. p. 41. ISBN 9789386261205. Shimizu, Masaki; Imai, Toshihiro. "Vaginal Cyst in a Newborn". The Journal of Pediatrics. 163 (6). doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2013.07.043. Merlob, P.; Bahari, C.; Liban, E.; Reisner, S.H. "Cysts of the female external genitalia in the newborn infant". American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 132 (6): 607–610. doi:10.1016/0002-9378(78)90851-7


 * Gartner’s cysts are found in women aged 23-48 . EILBER, KARYN SCHLUNT; RAZ, SHLOMO. "Benign Cystic Lesions of the Vagina: A Literature Review". The Journal of Urology. 170 (3): 717–722. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000062543.99821.a2.


 * The ages at which cysts are found is an important piece of information to readers who need to know they may be in a cohort or their child may be in a cohort. By retaining the misleading sentence, we may be giving some readers the wrong idea that since they are not in a certain age group, they must not have a cyst. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉  17:32, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Cysts affecting different ages is not the issue. If a type of cyst most commonly affects a certain age group, we should note it, just like we note that the Bartholin's cyst usually affects younger women rather than older women. You just stated, "The ages at which cysts are found is an important piece of information to readers." And yet you want to remove this sentence, which can be reliably sourced. I don't feel strongly about whether it stays or goes in this article, but it should be mentioned in the Vaginal cysts article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

____________

Please check my edits
I did some minor editing and rather than run them past other editors, I simply added refs, did a few copy edits and added a phrase. Revert as you see fit. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉  22:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Barbara (WVS), as you likely saw, I did revert. Given the "substantial" part of the section above, I suppose you made the edit because it wasn't a lot. But your edit still wasn't a WP:Minor edit. It was an addition, which resulted in the following grammar issue: "While vaginitis is an inflammation of the vagina, and is attributed to several vaginal diseases and the postmenopausal drop in hormone levels." That is an incomplete sentence. I restored it to what it was before, but changed "is attributed to several vaginal diseases" to "is attributed to infection, hormonal issues, or irritants." The Vaginitis article can go into all of the details, and the section in the Vagina article already notes a number of things that may cause a vaginal infection; most of those things overlap with vaginitis.


 * The reason that I have vaginitis and vaginismus in one sentence is for flow and because they are sometimes confused by laypeople. The sentence is distinguishing the two. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:53, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced
"Abnormal vaginal discharge may be caused by STIs, diabetes, douches, fragranced soaps, bubble baths, birth control pills, yeast infection (commonly as a result of antibiotic use) or another form of vaginitis.[111] While vaginitis is an inflammation of the vagina, and is attributed to several vaginal diseases..." Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉  22:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * All of that is sourced. The "Abnormal vaginal discharge" sentence is indeed supported by the "McGrath J, Foley A (2016). Emergency Nursing Certification (CEN): Self-Assessment and Exam Review. McGraw Hill Professional. p. 138." source in the article. Yes, I didn't include the URL link, but that is because the URL link is only a snippet. The snippet is here, but the whole page cannot be seen with that snippet. It The text I included can be seen if one looks at this link. The vaginitis piece is supported by this "Ferri's Clinical Advisor 2013" source that is used in the article. You appear to have only looked at page 1134, but I cited pages 1134–1140, and I think all or most of those pages were available at the time that I cited them. And any case, it is now supported by an additional source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:53, 10 March 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sourcing the content. Sourcing the content is a good thing and appreciated. The article is better because of it. Thank you. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉  01:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Barbara (WVS), again, the content was already sourced. I did not add any unsourced material and never would, as many know. Why in the world do you keep acting like the material was unsourced? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The edit history indicates that you added a source. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉  01:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Barbara (WVS), yes, it does. I also noted in the edit history that it's an additional source for material that was already cited. Not only did you state that the vaginitis material was uncited, you stated that the "Abnormal vaginal discharge" sentence was uncited. Clearly, it was/is not. All it does is lack a URL, and I've provided one URL above indicating that the text is supported by the source and another URL above showing that it's supported by the source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that was a good addition. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉  01:41, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Undue weight
"Dewhurst's Textbook of Obstetrics and Gynaecology states, "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 adds, "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."[21]"
 * This content contains a quote representing undue weight of a minority (one) of sources. Most sources disagree with this quote. We should probably delete the quote altogether so as to not present it out of proportion to the majority of other sources, which at this time, are lacking. This whole section depends too heavily on the one source. I will be happy to provide the sources that I have found if you would like or I could draft up some additional, new content. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉  01:41, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Per the source and our WP:Verifiability and WP:Undue weight policies, noting that the debate exists is not WP:Undue weight. WP:Verifiability states, "When reliable sources disagree, maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight." And, well, per the sources in the green box below, it's clear that the "Dewhurst's Textbook of Obstetrics and Gynaecology" source is correct that a debate has existed and still does.


 * This 2001 "Endocrinology and Metabolism" source, from McGraw-Hill International (UK) Limited, page 379, states, "The developmental origin of the vagina is a highly controversial subject in embryology."
 * This 2005 "Surgery, Assisted Reproductive Technology and Infertility: Diagnosis and Management of Problems in Gynecologic Reproductive Medicine" source, from CRC Press, page 12, states, "Controversy exists concerning the embryology of the vagina. The issues have been debated since the 1930s when Koff and Minh attributed the origin of the vagina solely to the mullerian tubercle. The conflicting theories in this area suggest that the vagina is derived from the mesonephric ducts, the urogenital sinus, or the paramesonephric duct. The most commonly accepted theory is that the upper one-third of the vagina forms from the fusion of the downgrowing paramesonephric ducts and the inferior two-thirds form from the urogenital sinus."
 * This 2010 "Environmental Impacts on Reproductive Health and Fertility" source, from Cambridge University Press, page 33, states, "Despite many years of research, the embryology and development of the vagina remains controversial. The commonly accepted theory of vaginal development, made popular by Koff in 1933, will be described first." The source goes on to talk about the different theories, of course.


 * This 2012 "Current Diagnosis & Treatment Obstetrics & Gynecology, Eleventh Edition: Obstetrics and Gynecology 11e Inkling Chapter" source, from McGraw Hill Professional, page 59, states, "The causes of vaginal anomalies are difficult to assess because integration of the uterovaginal primordium and the urogenital sinus in the normal differentiation of the vagina remains a controversial subject."
 * This 2013 "Marshall’s Physiology of Reproduction: Volume 3 Pregnancy and Lactation," source (which appears to be a reprint of an older research from 1994), from Springer Science & Business Media, page 611, states, "The development of the vagina, and especially the origin of its epithelium, has been debated extensively in the embryological literature. There is still no general agreement regarding the relative contributions of these sources (O'Rahilly, 1977; J.G. Wilson, 1978). The current views are that the upper vagina and ectocervix develop from the Mullerian duct system as the caudal portion of the uterovaginal canal. The lower portion of the vagina is derived from the urogenital sinus."


 * This 2013 (reprint) "Blaustein's Pathology of the Female Genital Tract" source, from Springer Science & Business Media, page 132, states, "Debate over the embryologic origins of the vagina has persisted for more than 50 years. These differences reflect the complex and dynamic interrelationship of tissues derived from the different germ cell layers and the lack of animal model that parallels human vaginal development. Nonetheless, the discovery of specific epithelial and stromal abnormalities in the lower genital tract of women exposed to DES in utero emphasizes that pathologic changes in the adult may be a consequence of disordered embryogenesis. A brief review of vaginal development therefore follows (for a more detailed discussion see Chapter 1, Embryology and Disorders of Abnormal Sexual Development). It is generally agreed that both the müllerian ducts and urogenital sinus contribute to the formation of the vagina."


 * This 2015 "Female Genital Tract Congenital Malformations: Classification, Diagnosis and Management" source, from Springer Science & Business Media, page 8, states, "'Until very recently, the most generalized theory about the embryology of the vagina suggested that its upper part comes from the Müller ducts (müllerian vagina) and the lower part from the urogenital sinus (sinus vagina) [33, 67], though always assuming the inducing function of the mesonephric ducts in the appropriate müllerian development [43, 57]. However, apart from the inducing role of the mesonephric ducts on the Müllerian ducts, different studies, some of them experimental, have proved their participation in the formation of the vagina, so that the 'protrusions of the sinus' or the 'sinuvaginal bulbs' observed during the development of the vagina would actually be the caudal segments of the Wolffian ducts [28, 29, 37, 60]. Certainly, Hart [46] had already adopted the term 'Wolffian bulb' because the epithelial pockets that form the sinuvaginal bulbs keep remnants of the wolffian ducts. Witschi reexamined the Koff's embryo and deduced that the sinuvaginal bulbs were identical to the lower segments of the Wolffian ducts. This observation was confirmed by Bok and Drews [28] in an experimental study with embryo cultures."


 * This 2017 "Pathology of the Cervix" source, from Springer Science+Business Media, pages 2-3, states, "During early development in females, the caudal tip of the Müllerian duct, which is covered with columnar epithelium, reaches the urogenital sinus and fuses with the sinovaginal bulb, a solid squamous epithelial cord on the dorsal wall of the urogenital sinus (Müllerian tubercle) (see Fig. 1.1a) [17]. At that point the discussion of development touches a long-standing controversy. [17, 18]. Questions about the differences between the epithelium covering the vagina and lining the uterus, about the origin of the vagina and on how the columnar epithelium in the Müllerian vagina is converted into stratified squamous epithelium, have not been completely resolved. Several theories have been proposed [5],  but the most widely accepted theory hypothesizes that the upper two-thirds of the Müllerian vagina originate from the caudal part of the Müllerian duct, while the lower part of the vagina develops from the urogenital sinus."


 * So, while we can do without the quote (which I'd been debating with myself on whether or not to summarize), and we should add a summarized paragraph on this matter, it's a no from me on removing any mention of this debate. Even when it comes to what the majority view is, it doesn't automatically mean that we shouldn't present the minority view. So far, this particular topic concerns theories, as noted by the "Pathology of the Cervix" source. And per that "Pathology of the Cervix" source and others, we can and should note what the prevalent theory is. But these sources also show that the debate, which I've known about since I was 16, is something worth mentioning. As for "This whole section depends too heavily on the one source.", that is only a problem if other sources disagree. It's a small section. Pinging Axl, Tom (LT) and Rivertorch for their thoughts. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Replace quote with summary. The source seems adequate to document the existence of the debate. <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  05:03, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * "The paramesonephric ducts develop into a uterus, fallopian tubes, and upper vagina...The lower vagina develops as a pouch of the urogenital sinus near the müllerian tubercle."
 * "The urogenital sinus...will give rise to the distal vagina." "The paramesonephric ducts give rise to the upper vagina while the urogenital sinus gives rise to the lower vagina."
 * "The anlage of the uterine corpus and cervix and upper vagina is termed the uterovaginal vaginal canal.""The canal is initially a straight tube lined with mullerian columnar epithelium that joins the endoderm-derived urogenital sinus."
 * "...a critical commitment period permits the proliferation of müllerian ducts and the formation of the fallopian tubes, uterus, and the upper two thirds of the vagina."...the urogenital sinus differentiates to form a separate urethral and vaginal opening."
 * "The inferior end of the vagina forms from the sinovaginal bulbs on the posterior wall of the primitive urogenital sinus." "The uterus and superior end of the vagina begin to form as the paramesonephric ducts fuse..."
 * "...the paramesonephric ducts develop into a uterus, fallopian tubes, and upper vagina." "The distal vagina develops as a diverticulum of the urogenital sinus near the müllerian tubercle, becoming contiguous with the distal end of the müllerian ducts." "Roughly four-fifths of the vagina originates from the urogenital sinus and one-fifth is of müllerian origin."
 * "This demonstrates that the vagina has two origins: the upper vagina originates from the paramesonephric ducts and the lower vagina from the urogenital sinus."
 * "...the vagina is derived from the mesonephric ducts, the urogenital sinus, or the paramesonephric duct. The most commonly accepted theory is that the upper one-third of the vagina forms from the fusion of the downgrowing paramesonephric ducts and the inferior two-thirds form from the urogenital sinus."
 * "There are four major models for the developmental origin of vaginal epithelium. The most widely accepted of these is the “UGS+MD origin” model, in which the upper two-thirds of the vagina (Müllerian vagina) develops from the caudal portion of the MDs, and the lower portion (sinus vagina) develops from the UGS."
 * "...the Müllerian compartment which includes the uterus, proximal vagina...the involvement of the deep urogenital sinus in the formation of both the urethra and the distal vagina has been known for long."
 * "At present, it is considered to have a dual origin... the upper portion is thought to be derived from the Müllerian ducts...and the lower portion from the urogenital sinus..."


 * I agree, but though controversy does exist and the article should say so, it is unclear (to me anyway) what the minority opinion might be.


 * The summary should be:
 * "Most anatomists agree that the upper portion of the vagina is formed from the Müllerian ducts and the lower portion is derived from the urogenital sinus, though this is still controversial."(add sources)
 * The section doesn't need to rely on one source especially when there are higher quality sources that are more recent.
 * Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉  17:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Too brief and doesn't go into the needed details. The wording "this is still controversial" is vague. I am in the process of proposing text. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * And I'm not sure why you added an additional collapse box, with one of the sources I used in mine, when my collapse box already makes it abundantly clear that there is a debate that has existed for many years while also noting that Koff's theory is the most accepted theory. And I do stress "theory," since latter and more recent research has anatomists and scientists doubting that theory. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay, Axl, Tom (LT) and Rivertorch, I suggest replacing the current paragraph with the following:

"There are conflicting views on the embryologic origins of the vagina. The majority view is Koff's 1933 description, which posits that the upper two-thirds of the vagina originate from the caudal part of the Müllerian duct, while the lower part of the vagina develops from the urogenital sinus. Other views are Bulmer's 1957's description that the vaginal epithelium derives solely from the urogenital sinus epithelium, and Witschi's 1970 research, which reexamined Koff's description and concluded that the sinovaginal bulbs are same as the lower portions of the Wolffian ducts. Witschi's view is supported by research by Acién et al., Bok and Drews.  Robboy et al. reviewed Koff and Bulmer's theories, and support Bulmer's description in light of their own research. The debates stem from the complexity of the interrelated tissues and the absence of an animal model that matches human vaginal development precisely. As such, anatomists continue to study human vaginal development."

I also thought about having the "debates stem" sentence come second, and to then have the final sentence state "Anatomists continue to study human vaginal development to resolve these disputes." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I think the two possible changes you mention last would both be improvements. Other than that, it looks fine to me. <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  20:06, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * In the interest of coming up with an acceptable content addition, I concur with F22's proposed content. I would rather see more of the quality sources I've provided above since these also mention the studies in the proposed text in addition to other studies that are as recent as 2018. Also, using those resources that are only from accessible, free texts skews the article toward those lower quality sources. Adding higher quality sources, some which are behind a paywall, brings more balance and more accurately reflects the literature that is available on a topic. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉  20:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * There is no need to trade out the sources I used for the sources you used. Academic book sources are not automatically of lesser quality than journal sources. Furthermore, the sources I used are to support the wording I used. And you used academic book sources for most of the content in your collapse box as well; the difference is that, except for the "Surgery, Assisted Reproductive Technology and Infertility: Diagnosis and Management of Problems in Gynecologic Reproductive Medicine" source, which I also pointed to in my collapse box, you have linked to worldcat.org for your book sources while I have linked to Google Books. And, yes, using accessible, free texts is often better than using WP:PAYWALL sources, especially when editing disputes arise. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I respect your opinion but need to point out that the whole purpose of the Visiting Scholar program is to provide access to content that is not available through Google Books. Links to the University of Pittsburgh Library holdings would be useless in a reference and the WikiEd visual editor automatically links to the World Cat number. An editing dispute about sources should not impede improving this article and the addition of sources that exist behind a paywall is appropriate and even encouraged by the WikiEd foundation. Visiting scholars and students working with the WikiEd Foundation add sources that exist behind paywalls every day and that content is lauded and makes the encyclopedia better. I can't think of one reference behind a paywall in this whole article that you have 'approved'. I hope I am wrong on that. I would like some consensus from other editors regarding my use of sources behind the Pitt paywall. I would like to swap out some of the older Google book references for those more comprehensive sources that are of high quality. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉  21:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * My opinion has been echoed by others when it comes to challenging your idea of higher quality sources. You have an odd idea of higher quality sources that does not align with what WP:MEDRS states. How are your above sources higher quality when you also mainly used book sources, including older book sources, and linked to worldcat.org? How is linking to worldcat.org of higher quality than linking to Google Books? And how are your sources supposed to "bring more balance and more accurately reflect the literature that is available on a topic"? Wikipedia sourcing is not based on what the WP:Visiting Scholar program recommends (if what you state about that is true). Do stop putting your Visiting Scholar program work ahead of how Wikipedia works. And when it comes to Pitt, you have been repeatedly seen as having a WP:Conflict of interest, although you have stated that you don't have one. Either way, your focus on using Pitt sources is absurd and tiresome. As for me approving content behind a paywall, considering that there were paywall sources in this article (some added by me) before you even began editing it and considering that I have approved of some of your proposed content that has been behind a paywall, your "I haven't approved of any" claim is false. Furthermore, I cited a journal source above that is not easily accessible. Your "behind a paywall makes a better source" viewpoint is one of the oddest viewpoints I have ever seen on this site. Those types of sources have caused more trouble than anything since they are not accessible unless one pays or asks someone else for access to the reference. It's why WP:PAYWALL has to advise people to not shun paywall sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. We should be using high quality sources, and this decision should not be guided by if they are behind a paywall or not. If readers want to learn more (even if an article is comprehensive and thorough), they can use google, our see also or our external link sections to find other sources. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * @ I think it may be useful to start that section by pointing out that most sources do have a common understanding that some part of the lower vagina is formed from the urogenital sinus, and some to most of the top is formed from the Müllerian duct, but that sources differ on the contributions of each. This would be consistent with the sources you provide. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Tom (LT), I haven't disagreed with using high quality sources. I've disagreed with Barbara (WVS)'s definition of high quality sources. I'm using the same type of sourcing you use on anatomy articles -- academic book sources -- as a review of your GA articles show. Barbara (WVS) has also cited academic book sources above, but has sourced them to worldcat.org. Linking to worldcat.org does not make a source higher quality. As for accessibility, I will always prefer accessibility over non-accessibility. Been in too many Wikipedia disputes to not know the benefit of that. As for your statement about the proposed text, it already makes clear the majority view, which supports that some part of the lower vagina is formed from the urogenital sinus, and some to most of the top is formed from the Müllerian duct. I don't see a need to further stress that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * This is my personal preference and may not align perfectly with policy, but I would prefer that sources behind paywalls be used only when other satisfactory sources are unavailable. Wikipedia should strive to be not only the encyclopedia that anyone can edit but also the encyclopedia whose content anyone can verify. It isn't always possible, of course, but it's a good objective to shoot for. <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  01:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


 * "Also, using those resources that are only from accessible, free texts skews the article toward those lower quality sources." – Barbara. It is unclear to me that free sources are of lower quality than paid/paywalled sources. Each source should be judged on its own merit. If it is of good quality, it may be suitable. This is irrespective of the cost of viewing it.


 * If a proposed statement has two potential sources of equally good quality, one of which is paywalled, if may be preferable to use the freely available source.


 * Many free sources (not used in this article) are of poor quality. However the same is true of paywalled sources. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 11:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Ryan (Wiki Ed) has noted that Barbara (WVS)'s view on the Visiting Scholar program with respect to sources is incorrect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay, Rivertorch and SilkTork, per the section below and what is going on at ANI, I'll go ahead and add the content I proposed above. I'll also change the vaginal support material per Talk:Vagina/Archive 11 and what is stated a little above that. And then we can get on with the GA nomination. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a plan. It will be good to move forward. Thank you for your patience. <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  05:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Still looking over some text on vaginal support structures, and trying different wording in a draft I'm working on. Either way, it won't be too much longer. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Will add today. It's not anything I worked on in a draft. I will let the Vaginal support structures article mainly handle that topic while it still exists. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

___

Proposed content #
When redrafting this proposed content, I request that the sources behind a paywall not be deleted from the revisions.

"Benign vaginal neoplasms can develop in the vagina. Benign vaginal growths do not spread to other sites in the body and are confined by a fibrous membrane. Surgical removal usually results in removing all tumor tissue and is very successful. When these benign growths are small, they typically cause no symptoms until they reach a 'significant' size. Signs and symptoms of a benign vaginal tumor include a feeling of pressure, painful intercourse and bleeding. Examples of benign vaginal tumors are: Blue nevus, Leiomyoma, Fibroepithelial polyp, and Adenomatoid Tumor.  Tumors in the vagina can also come from metastases or cancer that has spread to the vagina from other parts of the body. Cancer that has spread from the colon, bladder, and stomach is far more common than cancer that originates in the vagina itself. "

____


 * Comment. Some of the sources above are very weird. EG "Benign vaginal neoplasms can develop in the vagina." uses "Type-2 pericytes participate in normal and tumoral angiogenesis" as a source. Is that source really going to be the best or authoritative source about vaginal neoplasms? Also why do each of the proposed tumours need three sources?? This in my opinion is citation overkill and the only ramification is that it makes the article harder to read and harder to verify. The content itself is easy to understand and looks good.--Tom (LT) (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The sources ARE weird but discuss the benign tumors referenced. I can see if I can find a pdf that I can forward to you if you would like. I am all for paring down the references, but typically find more so as one citation becomes outdated another can be used. Reference 6 could be used to support the content on examples of benign tumors and the rest dropped. MEDRS mentions that articles should be citation heavy and I attempt to follow that particular guideline when possible. Since some of the benign vaginal neoplasms are uncommon, then yes, these are the best regerences that I could find. We have artcles on rare, orphaned conditions and diseases so that mentioning such things is appropriate. I am not proposing the addition of content on malignant vaginal tumors, but I am proposing the inclusion of information on benign tumors because as a whole, they actually are quite common. As for the information on cancer of the vagina, it is notable that when cancer is found in the vagina, it is almost always a metastatic lesion. I have come to expect heavy editing of my proposed content additions and assume that this content will be altered to include the information preferred by other editors. I removed ref 1. There are 11 benign tumors of the vagina and the content proposed above only mentions 3. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉  00:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you think this article needs this content when there are existing articles it can go in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * In a comprehensive article on anatomy, it is appropriate to describe (briefly) the clinical content and conditions that are congenital or acquired related to that structure. The same information can be and will be added to other appropriate articles. The vagina is an organ that is quite susceptible to a relatively high number of health problems and the more information that women have about their own bodies, the better. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉  00:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Benign vaginal neoplasms (and not just "some") are uncommon/rare. It seems to me that we could briefly mention vaginal tumors in the "Infections, diseases, and safe sex" section, where vaginal cancer (another rare matter) is already mentioned. And, yes, I know that a tumor is not automatically cancerous. That stated, we already include other rare stuff in the "Anomalies and other health issues" section. So this paragraph can also go there. I'm all for comprehensive articles; I just don't want to see us keep piling on rare stuff after rare stuff. Your proposal needs a little tweaking, though. Right now, it has capitalization, WP:REFPUNCT (just one) and URL issues. You don't have to cite the search string of a URL; you can cut the string at the "pg=" and the page number. We'll see what River has to state. Axl might also want to weigh in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * And I concur with Tom about any possible WP:Citation overkill. If two or three sources are needed, then fine. But two or three sources are more often included for controversial stuff. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Concerns

 * I had a look at these sources... and this raises more questions:

In conclusion, although I thought I would just have a look at these sources, I have to say I am very concerned if this is your usual editing style, as there are significant issues with almost every sentence. The above editing implies a rapid, careless and sloppy editing style. What is worse is that some of the things you have mentioned are  incorrect , and I feel some degree of effort has been made to hide this fact. You will not be the first editor who contributes voluminous amounts of often incorrect content at a frenetic pace but if this continues there will have to be some oversight or intervention, it is unfair to expect other editors to spend their time monitoring or fixing your edits. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Why is one source included twice? (the #5 and #8 WHO source), and used to support the same fact twice?
 * 2) Where is "significant" size regarding benign vaginal neoplasms mentioned in the merck source (#3) - you have highlighted 'significant' but I can't find it in that source?
 * 3) Why is "Most vaginal tumors produce no symptoms until significant size is reached. Symptoms and signs may include a sensation of pressure, dyspareunia, obstruction of the vagina or urethra, or vaginal bleeding. However, most lesions will be detected during a routine exam in the asymptomatic patient. Vaginal neoplasms may be divided into cystic or solid lesions " (source 4) so close to the text??
 * 4) Why is #7 included? (this is just a reposting of the WHO list)? # Why are three sources needed for blue naevus or leiomyoma, if this is not controversial?
 * 5) Why are we mentioning Adenomatoid polyp - the WHO list states this (adenomatoid tumour) has only occurred once??
 * 6) Why have you used what is clearly a primary source in the journal of anatomy to cite adenomatoid polyps?
 * 7) Why isn't the tumour note cited at all? Why is it including information about etymology and leukaemia? What meaning does "a solid or fluid-filled cystic lesion that may or may not be formed by an abnormal growth of neoplastic cells)" have - this covers all states of matter except gas and "may or may not" covers all possible states?
 * 8) The source does not state "are confined by a fibrous membrane" but "USUALLY".
 * 9) Where are the "signs" mentioned in "signs and symptoms"?
 * 10) You mention "Tumors in the vagina can also come from metastases or cancer" are you talking about "benign vaginal neoplasms" as the paragraph begins with? do you mean to say metastases and cancer spread from other parts of the body are the same or different things?
 * 11) What do you mean by cancer in the last sentence? I'm confused because there is a long note about the meaning of neoplasms and tumours yet the small paragraph uses all three (and also "growth").
 * 12) Where is the reference to metastatic cancer on page 41 of source 12??


 * ADDIT: this is my fairly harsh and honest appraisal. Other editors such as, , and  may wish to contribute here. Are there similar and this many issues with other edits that you have been working on? I am most concerned about the use of incorrect references and paraphrasing. This is almost beyond good faith as it destroys our credibility and sucks up the time of other contributors. In addition, if there are incorrect facts they are likely to masquerade and attract less scrutiny because of incorrect references--Tom (LT) (talk) 10:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I am at the point where I think we need to consider asking Barbara to stop editing this article. I have approached her informally by email and offered to assist her to edit elsewhere, as I am concerned by the situation on this article, but I feel she can assist Wikipedia as she has energy and enthusiasm. There is a lot of time and effort and stress being extended here, which I don't think is helpful to any of the editors involved, including Barbara, and the article is not improving. It is currently a bit unstable, and not making appropriate progress. I am not a regular watcher of this article (I am waiting to be called to review it for GA when ready, so I wish to stay out of things as much as possible), but occasionally I am pinged, and when I am some of the edits by Barbara that I see concern me as they may be either removing correct information or inserting dubious or incorrect material. While in the totally of Barbara's edits there is some positive, the time taken to examine her edits to check what she has done, and to correct her mistakes, and to discuss this with her, is disproportionate to the benefits she is able to bring. My feeling at this stage is that the article would progress better without her presence. I have offered to her that she could propose her improvements to the article to me by email, and I would raise them with the other editors, but have not yet had a response. I am still happy to work with Barbara in other areas of Wikipedia (non-medical), and to liaise for her on this article, but I feel it would be better for all concerned if she stopped editing it directly. SilkTork (talk) 11:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have an opinion but would prefer to read Barbara's response to Tom's appraisal before sharing it. Some of the allegations are rather serious. <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  15:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I want to make sure you're aware of this discussion. <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  18:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you RT, I will be contacting the editors involved by email. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉  22:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "Editors involved by email"? What does that mean? How does that help resolve any of this? This is supposed to be handled out in the open. It affects this article and other Wikipedia articles. We are trying to assess why you have made the proposal you did. And you can't take the time to explain yourself here in the section about it? And although River and SilkTork will keep me informed via email, it's safe to state that you won't be contacting me via email. And please don't. As you know, I didn't respond to your other email either. And as far I know, for support, you might be contacting editors who are not directly involved in this matter concerning you. From what I can see, you will be trying to make a biased case for your editing. You've already referred to vague "errors" in the and  sections above, as if to suggest that my, Doc James's and Axl's editing of and/or guidance on this article has been problematic. At the moment, per what Tom stated above and what I stated below, I am likely to propose an editing restriction with regard to you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, Tom. Doc James and Johnuniq might also be interested in the review. I wasn't expecting it because you have mainly excused yourself from all of this, which I know has partly been due to you being busy. And, yes, I think we need to reexamine the "Anomalies and other health issues" section for any errors. That section mostly consists of Barbara's text. Examining Barbara's text for errors is why I have asked Doc James and Axl about some stuff supported by one or more paywall sources. Stuff like this is also partly why I prefer not to use paywall sources, as noted in the section above. As for other additions by Barbara to the article... The "Pelvic examinations" material is mostly her text. In the "Infections, diseases, and safe sex" section, the "epithelial layers of the vagina" paragraph is her text. So is the "Vaginal intracavity brachytherapy (VBT) is used to treat endometrial, vaginal and cervical cancer. An applicator is inserted into the vagina to allow the administration of radiation as close to the site of the cancer as possible." text and the "By using the vagina to place the emitter as close to the cancerous growth as possible, the systemic effects of radiation therapy are reduced and cure rates for vaginal cancer are higher" text. In the "Effects of aging and childbirth" section, the "uterus can also leave its normal position and sometimes even extend past the hymen." text is hers, and so is the "During the third stage of labor" text. In the Surgery section, the "During an episiotomy" paragraph is her text. And so is a bit of the "surgery on the vagina can be elective or cosmetic" paragraph. Other than all of that, there's not a lot of material from her in the article. And I've stated this before, but Barbara's errors are not just about this article. For example, at the List of vaginal tumors article, she recently heavily used a reference that was a book on domestic animals. I do think that the larger community needs to weigh in on her editing medical/anatomy articles. And in addition to the evidence presented by Tom, I have evidence that highlights concerns as well. I know that Barbara will react to all of this defensively, but it's really about ensuring the accuracy of these articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * As a general comment, I am struggling to find a source that describes the epidemiology (most importantly incidence or prevalence) of these benign vaginal neoplasms. I have tried looking in gynaecological textbooks and Pubmed. The absence of this information makes it difficult to decide how relevant is the detail about these neoplasms for this article. If anyone has found incidence/prevalence information, I would like to see it.


 * "Reference 1" above is not a reference at all. Rather, it is a note.


 * While I agree with Tom (LT)'s concern about Barbara's writing style, this is something that we can improve collaboratively. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 12:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * We can clean up any amount of bad prose, but Tom (LT) expressed several concerns, some of which went way beyond writing style. I think those need to be addressed. For the record, Barbara (WVS), I don't consider this an adequate response to what Tom (LT) wrote. I am unclear why you've chosen to use email rather than responding here (or elsewhere on-wiki, at your discretion), and I am disinclined to reply to your email without your providing a credible reason for using that form of communication. <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  15:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have had some urgent family issues come up recently including a death in the family and the placement of another in extended care. This doesn't mean your concerns are trivial. I simply need a few minutes to respond here in a thorough and thoughtful manner. My apologies if it seems as if your comments are being ignored, they are not. I understand the gravity of the discussion. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉  16:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * My condolences on your loss. <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  16:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Barbara (WVS), since Tom (LT)'s post, you have been busy editing and expanding articles. I understand that everyone handles grief differently, but I don't see why you couldn't have taken the time to respond to his post here and instead chose to email. I will give you some time to reply before making a final decision on whether to request a restriction on your editing, but I am not at all convinced that you should be editing medical/anatomy articles, as you very well know. So I doubt that your reply will change my mind. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. This talk page is not on my watchlist and I became aware of it after RT's ping. When I pull up my browser, I begin working on a page that is open if I don't get a notification. I'll try responding in more detail later. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉  18:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Given how heavily invested you are in this article and that you would respond without needing to be pinged (although I would usually ping you because it gets your attention), I find it odd that you don't have it watchlisted. Remember, having the article watchlisted means that the talk page is watchlisted as well. But anyway, like I stated, I await your commentary. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Tom (and others), thank you for your patience while awaiting my response. I would like to address your concerns in a general sense, your separate concerns in detail, and your concerns with what may be seen as a 'pattern' rather than an 'incident'. The general sense: Yes, this was a very 'crappy' draft to submit for consideration. I could give all sorts of excuses but will not. Perhaps it would have been better next week. In any case I withdraw it from consideration at this point. It was sloppy and I tried to cut and paste it together from sources and texts that need work themselves.


 * I would like to address the specifics listed by Tom (I am glad to answer your concerns and do so with the best of intentions)
 * Tom’s concern#1
 * The content was combined from two different wp pages and during the draft I didn’t notice that they were the same source. Ironically, that source has been replaced by a later WHO source from 2014 I found today.


 * Tom's concern#2
 * “significant size” comes from the glowm reference #4. This #4 reference supports the two previous statements.


 * Tom’s Concern# 3
 * This is a (unintentional) copy violation and not should be included in the vagina article in this form. A better version would be:
 * “Vaginal tumors are not symptomatic while small. The presence of larger tumors can lead to vaginal obstruction, bleeding, a sensation of pressure, or painful intercourse though most lesions will be found during a routine pelvic exam in asymptomatic females. Vaginal neoplasms can be classified as solid, cystic and those that are of mixed types. Biopsy allows the most precise diagnosis.”ref 4 (GLOWM)


 * Tom’s concern #4
 * Ref 7 is a tertiary source and helps to establish notability of the WHO list.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone_lists The lists are not exactly the same. They are published independently of one another. I have considered every contribution of content to be controversial and include more references than some editors prefer. Presenting multiple references here allows other editors to choose those they prefer and also choose the ones that may be more up-to-date.


 * Tom's concern #5
 * I was able to access the 2014 edition of WHO Classification of Tumours of Female Reproductive Organs:
 * “Tubovillous and villous adenomas 
 * Definition:Polyps that resemble colorectal adenomas.
 * ICD-O codes: Tubovillous adenoma, Villous adenoma 
 * Synonyms: Adenomatous polyp; villous polyp 8263/0 8261/0 
 * Epidemiology: Eight cases have been reported, most in women older than 40 years.” 
 * I agree that this type of vaginal tumor is very rare whether it is known from one case or eight cases. If you don’t believe that it should be included in the article, then by all means, let’s leave it out.
 * Tom’s concern #6
 * The 2014 WHO text is not a primary source. The other reference is from a text book. From my understanding of medical referencing there are times that primary sources can be used. One instance where they can be used with other, better sources are used, and when content is about a rare disease/condition. The primary source from the journal doesn’t have to be used. If the journal article is not acceptable, then let’s leave it out. That is the purpose of proposing content on this talk page, to come to a consensus on the proposed content and refs.
 * Tom’s concern #7
 * I’m not sure what the question is. The tumor note can be cited with the NIH definitions-an easy fix. There are leukemia-type vaginal ‘masses’ that can be found in the vagina, pretty rare. Also, there is a gas-filled vaginal cyst. No, I am not trying to be funny. It is also pretty rare. The note was meant to clarify the use of a variety of terms: tumor, neoplasm, cyst, malignancy, mass, cancer etc. If the note did not do the job, then the note should not be included.
 * Tom’s concern #8
 * You are correct. It would have been a copyvio to keep the word ‘usually’ in the text-I had to paraphrase and drop ‘usually’.
 * Tom’s concern #9
 * “Symptoms and signs may include a sensation of pressure, dyspareunia, obstruction of the vagina or urethra, or vaginal bleeding”. From the GLOWM webpage. I’m not if this answers the question your asking or I am misunderstanding this comment.
 * Tom’s concern #10
 * Cancer in the vagina can be primary cancer that originates in the vaginal epithelium OR cancer in the vagina can come from metastases, cancer that originates in other tissues. Benign vaginal neoplasms do not spread from other parts of the body.
 * Tom’s concern #11
 * My proposed content: “Cancer that has spread from the colon, bladder, and stomach is far more common than cancer that originates in the vagina itself." The wikilinks lead to colon cancer, bladder cancer and stomach cancer. I took this to mean that colon cancer, bladder cancer and stomach cancer metastases are more common in the vagina than vaginal cancer itself.
 * Tom’s concern #12
 * The reference should be to page 48 instead of page 41.
 * I would still like to address comments of the other editors but have to attend to other matters. I apologize for making anyone wait for further responses. I will return in the morning (here). Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉  00:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

__________

In the general sense...
Since there is some discomfort about email communications, I will leave comments here for all editors. I still intend to respond by email, mostly to express my appreciation for the sincere desire to come up with the best article possible, and for the grace shown to me while others have had to wait for me to respond. I have been initially contacted by email and see no reason why email discussions can't continue.

Generally

 * I sense much frustration in my attempts to improve the article. Causing other editors distress is something that I generally avoid. The exception would be here on the talk page.
 * There isn't a perceived need to add content to the article.
 * The latest draft of the content I proposed was awful and waste of time.
 * I sense that others are eager to get to the GA review sooner rather than later.
 * I sense others would rather not spend so much time on this talk page and move on to other editing activities.

Is the editing that I have done on this article a pattern or an incident? It is likely that I wouldn't be able to convince anyone either way because it would not take much effort to locate mistakes or errors that I have made in editing. Let me make these observations:
 * Many editors add little content and therefore don't have to be scrutinized for their contributions. This needs to be done or else we wouldn't have an encyclopedia
 * The main contributions of some editors involves the detection of errors of others. Possibly this may lead to the conclusion that errors are the norm and that those who contribute content can be counted on regularly make errors.
 * My edits are closely watched by a small number of editors. Many of these editors appear in the editing history within minutes after I have left my edits. The great majority of the times my content remains and my references are changed to match the preferences of the other editor. These are not errors. I am closely monitored.
 * I find and correct the errors of other editors all the time, usually when I am editing an article for which I have just added content and reference. This is because that is when I notice the errors, I don't go to the talk page to discuss the error. I sometimes don't even use the word 'error' in the edit summary. I just fix it.
 * I work on an article for days at a time, improving it incrementally. This is because I have all my references at hand, open and consulted while editing. Those following my edits may have the impression that I have created a finished piece when it is not. You will see comments on the talk pages of some of the articles I have created commenting on the 'unfinished' version, assuming that I have stopped editing it and pointing out what they think are mistakes and questioning the creation of the article in the first place. Are these errors?
 * If I regularly make errors, if my editing pattern is one of continuous introduction of errors, you would see this pattern addressed on my talk page and in the edit histories.
 * An example:
 * Editor A edits WP occasionally and has contributed 20,000 edits since 2004. Most of these edits are contributions of content and references. Someone decided one day to count up all their errors and found 500 errors. 1429 edits/year. 36 errors per year, 3 errors per month.


 * Editor B edits WP regularly and has contributed 20,000 since 2014. Most of these are contributions of content and references. Someone counted up all their errors and found 500 errors. 5,000 edits/year. 500 errors. 125 errors per year. 10 errors per month.


 * The total number of errors are the same, the ratios of errors of errors are the same. The rate over time varies. Editor A appears to be making fewer errors. Chances are editor A's edits have not been followed for 14 years. Chances are better that editor B's edits have been scrutinized for 4 years.

So generally speaking, the last few weeks of my 'sloppy' editing is an incident and not a pattern. If there is a pattern, it is that me and F22 don't agree most of the time.

Proposal

 * I will stop editing this article for 6 months
 * I will begin the process of confirming my content contributions and referencing for the past 12 articles that I have created
 * I will ask for the oversight of another editor
 * I will provide information regarding still missing content to

I will consider this my last post to this talk page at this time and withhold any further interactions here in the interest of refocusing efforts in the promotion to GA. After six months I will return to the talk page with my suggestions for improvements. All further comments about editing this article are welcome on my talk page.
 * The Very Best of Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉  13:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This was resolved at ANI: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive979. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Lacunae
In a conversation a couple of days ago, I asked Barbara what kind of information she felt was missing from this article. I didn't take notes but among the things she mentioned were: there is no coverage of biological development outside the womb and the article could use a sentence describing in broad terms the supporting structures, such as fascia, muscle, tendons, etc. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Anthonyhcole, see the section above. Covering the vaginal support structures in a different way has already been addressed. Vaginal support structures material is already in the article, but I am still thinking on how to cover it differently. See this comment I made yesterday. However I go about covering it, I will point to Barbara's Vaginal support structures article for further detail. Speaking of that article right now, though, I see that the lead for it currently states, "Anatomical and congenital variations of vaginal support structures can predispose a women to further dysfunction and prolapse later in life." I don't see that in the source. Do you or Tom (LT) see it there or that the text accurately summarizes the source on that matter? I also see that the lead states, "The urethra is part of the anterior wall of the vagina and damage to the support structures there can lead to incontinence and urinary retention." I'm not used to seeing sources state that the urethra is part of the anterior wall, and I don't see that the source states that either. I am used to seeing sources state that the urethra is embedded in the anterior vaginal wall; it may seem like semantics, but I do think there is more accuracy to "embedded in the anterior vaginal wall" than "a part of the anterior vaginal wall." Maybe this is because there are so many people who think that girls and women urinate out of the vagina, and so, to me, the "embedded" wording is clearer when thinking about and looking at the anatomy of the vagina. As for "there is no coverage of biological development outside the womb," I am not sure what Barbara means unless she is talking about how the vagina ages. Aging material is already included in the article. I know of no sources speaking about "the biological development of the vagina outside the womb" unless speaking of the vagina in an aging context.


 * On a side note: I know that you mean well, but I'd rather that this article not continue to be dictated by Barbara, whether directly or indirectly. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Gross anatomy vs. microanatomy
Jytdog, regarding this edit, sources are clear to only describe the vagina as a collapsed tube when not sexually aroused. That's why I've included that.

And regarding the material you added to the Gross anatomy section, I reverted because the vast majority of that material is already in the Microanatomy section. Gross anatomy is what can be seen with the naked eye, including upon dissection, while something like the vaginal epithelium (which is what the vaginal walls material mostly concerns) is a microanatomy manner. I originally had that material together, but it was separated by Tom (LT) when preparing the article for GA status; see Talk:Vagina/Archive 9. More recently, I created the "Gross anatomy" heading, though. I'll go ahead and restore the material you added that wasn't redundant. If you feel that the article has mixed up some gross anatomy and microanatomy material, then, yes, let's fix that. If you want to restore your wording, just be aware of the previous three walls vs. four walls debate (now seen at Talk:Vagina/Archive 7); the conflict in sources is why the article notes both in the Microanatomy section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't see that the article really mixes up anything when it comes to gross anatomy vs. microanatomy; there is going to be a little overlap, but that's expected. For example, the rugae can be seen with the naked eye, but there's also the study of them in relation to histology/microanatomy, and that is what the Microanatomy section mainly deals with. Stuff like the makeup of tissue and cells falls under microanatomy. As for the "When a woman is standing, the vagina runs at about a 45 degree angle from its opening, up toward the back." material you added, material on that is also already in the article; it's in the "Variations and size" section. But, with this edit months back, I removed the "and of about 60 degrees to the horizontal" piece. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

On a side note: We are using vauthors reference style for this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)