Talk:Prostate

Template:Tmbox[[Category:Template:GA/Topic good articles|Prostate]] Template:WikiProject banner shell Template:Annual readership User:MiszaBot/config

1. REDIRECT Template:Archives

Function after Prostate removal

There was an episode of the t.v. show King of Queens recently that stated that Doug's boss had his prostate removed due to cancer and because of that he had to urinate every 10 minutes and/or had urinary control issues. After having read what has been posted here I find it highly unlikely that this is a realistic depiction. When I was watching it I just assumed that maybe one of the writers on the show had some real life experience where this actually happened. Anyways I was wonder if that would really happen or if it wouldn't?

barouqeswinger. 18 August 2007.

Female Prostate Update

First let me apologies for those errors’ updates earlier this evening, I’ve not done this before and did not realize there was a “sand box” option. Sounds stupid I know but occasionally I revert back to my blond childhood and am reminded not only how wonderful it was for my hair to get darker with age but how pleasant it is that such moments have become fewer as well.

Second I have made updates to this article in regards to the female prostate and have provided documentation for all of them save one which as a female I fell uniquely qualified to make without but have left the request/option for documentation on it anyway.

So please read and let me know what you think.

Miss Tanit 9 June 2008

More references for female prostate

I had a discussion with someone recently about whether or not a woman has a prostate or not. After reading the current Wikipedia article on the matter, I felt that there wasn't enough information to prove or disprove that women do in fact have a prostate.

I have recently found a PDF document relating to this matter that does prove it, however I'm unsure on what to write on the main article. I was tempted to simply just put a reference to the document. For this reason I am placing a link to this document here so others can discuss it and possibly write up a good section about it.

PDF Document Titled "Newsbulletin 30 - December 2009" by "International Society for Sexual Medicine": [1]

Active surveillance

The passage on active surveillance suggests that it is an infrequent treatment option. I think that is an obsolete opinion and would encourage a change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.100.173 (talk • contribs)

Merge proposal

There's a new page on Prostatic calculi, which I think would be better here. It is short, and the topic isn't mentioned on this page (as it should be). So, merge for short text and context. It could have a separate heading, probably Prostatic calcification would be better (more consistent with the naming of other forms of tissue calcification). Klbrain (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for appreciating the article I started and considering it for merging into a high-quality page. While I personally prefer "Prostatic calcification" or "Prostatic stones", I chose "calculi" because it is the term most frequently used in scientific literature. (by quick searching in pubmed) I am open to renaming it.

As for the merger, I believe the article should remain separate for the following reasons:

• Each type of calculus from different organs typically has its own dedicated article.
• Prostatic calculi are associated with aging, BPH, and prostatitis. Having a separate article allows better linking to these related conditions.
• Despite their high prevalence, the clinical significance of prostatic calculi remains debated. Most doctors view them as having limited importance. Merging it with the Prostate article could give undue attention to a subject that many professionals don't consider highly significant. I think it’s better to let the topic mature as its own independent article, at least for the time being, and later, some parts could be included in the main Prostate article.

— Arthurfragoso (talk) 02:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm inclined to keep these separate, because I think the most common reason for people to read about this is that they're looking at a radiology report and trying to find out what each word means, and getting dropped into a large article won't help them. (I like the idea of renaming it, though; it ought to be in the singular ("calculus"), and plain old English would IMO be fine ("stones").) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Withdrawn by proposer; I accept that there's sufficient support/arguments for keeping it separate. As to the title, while we usually use singular for titles, it does seem that they rarely occur singly, and so the commonest term is the plural: see ngram. So, I'll leave it as it is. Klbrain (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)