Talk:Vaginal flora

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Microbiota (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Non-existent reference in Vaginal microbiota
I am cleaning up the mycoplasma article and came across this reference in the Vaginal microbiota article since it was listed as a reference containing information on the bacteria genus, mycoplasma. But I can find no evidence that this book even exists: Hillier, S. L. 2008. Normal genital flora, p. 289–307, Sex. Transm. Dis. McGraw-Hill Companies, New York. Can anyone help on this, I've tried searching library catalogs, google scholar, amazon, no hits that confirm that the text even exists. Best Regards,
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 00:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not a book; it seems to be an attempt to give a reference to a journal article in the journal Sexually Transmitted Diseases. Although "SL Hillier" has co-authored papers in this journal according to Google Scholar, I can't find this one, and nothing with an even similar title shows up searching for the journal name and 2008. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So then you agree with me in saying that this reference doesn't exist, and therefore can't be a proper reference to support its preceding statement? Best Regards,   Bfpage &#124;leave a message 11:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Finally took a trip to the Pitt Med School library and found the article in the stacks. It actually states the opposite of the statement in the article!   Bfpage &#124;leave a message 01:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Discuss the article name
I propose that the name of the article be changed to: Vaginal microbiota. The reasons are many and include: Your comments are important and sought. Best Regards,
 * Two out of 33 recent review articles on the topic use the term Vaginal flora. The rest use 'Vaginal microbiome' or 'Vaginal microbiota'.
 * My search of the holdings of the University is about the same, with fewer references to 'flora'.
 * 'Vaginal flora' should remain in the article and be identified as a term that is being used less often. The other articles on the microbiota of the human body don't use the term 'flora'. It is a good thing to be consistent; it hints at consensus.
 * Barbara (WVS) (talk) 09:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Better to start a WP:Requested moves discussion since this is not a very actively-edited article and doesn't seem to be high-traffic. WP:Common name and Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles should be kept in mind. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I see that you alerted WP:Med for input; so that might spur on more opinions on the rename proposal. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

per WP Common name the article title seems correct...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * There's been more publications on pubmed that use the term microbiota instead of flora in the last 10 years - and especially so in the last 5 years. I'm inclined to go with "vaginal microbiota" on this one. Flora seems like an outdated term for microorganisms.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 11:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Seppi333, you might be right, however there should be a Requested_moves--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * A crude Google search gives 259k results for "vaginal microbiota" and 659k results for "vaginal flora". This seems to position "Commonname" and "Medmos" in opposition to each other. However "flora" is still somewhat medical so I would weakly prefer "microbiota". Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment no opinion either way. Fine the way it is. Fine if it is moved. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't care, as long as you set up redirects and mention alternative names somewhere in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose I oppose because this discussion is a small case in a bigger issue. Without information about the bigger issue, I wish to avoid making any strong judgement about changing the status quo. There are these articles and categories -
 * Microbiota
 * Human microbiota
 * Gut flora
 * The opening sentence in the lead states that gut microbiota is a better term.
 * Barbara (WVS) (talk) 22:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * List of human flora
 * Category:Gut flora
 * In all of these cases, "flora" and "microbiota" are used as equivalent terms. Instead of discussing each of these cases individually, all of these and "vaginal flora" should be discussed together and all of these articles should use the same term. If this proposal were reformatted as a discussion for choosing the best term everywhere then I would consider further. I see no evidence that "vaginal flora" is so different from the rest that it should be considered alone outside the context of the others.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  17:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The same naming conventions apply to all the different areas of the human microbiome. Recent (2010 and onward) use the terms human gut microbiota/microbiome, oral microbiota (needs an article), microbiota of the eye (needs an article), and there are even 'residents' in the upper reproductive tract of women that are being identified. In the Skin flora article, the first sentence also states that a better name for the topic is skin microbiome. We just need to catch up. This is a discussion about only changing the name (a move really) of this article. Changing all those others, well, is not something I am volunteering to do at this time. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support-- "flora" refers to plants, whereas microbiota covers bacteria, fungi, viruses, etc. and is therefore more accurate. However as noted previously Microflora is still in common usage in scientific sources, although some now disfavor this term. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Microbiota can also refer to protists and arthropods, creepy but sometime-inhabitants of the epidermis. Those who study such things have the epidermis divided up into 20 different microbiomes, each region with a predictable number and type of species. WP even has template:


 * Barbara (WVS) (talk) 22:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Extra comment: Ozzie10aaaa, Seppi333, Axl, Doc James, WhatamIdoing, Bluerasberry and Matthew Ferguson, for a similar (but brief) discussion, see the Talk:Microbiota (disambiguation) discussion that Number 57 closed. Pinging Kevo Strevin, Zefr and Red Slash, who all took part in that discussion. Judging by their Wikipedia accounts, Kevo Strevin and Red Slash haven't edited since 2015, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)