Talk:Vulva
<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vulva Template:Pagetype. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Template:Find general sources |
| Archives: Template:Comma separated entries<templatestyles src="Template:Tooltip/styles.css" />Auto-archiving periodScript error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".: Template:Human readable duration File:Information icon4.svg |
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".
Template:Contentious topics/talk notice Script error: No such module "Message box". Script error: No such module "Message box". Template:Banner holder User:MiszaBot/config
National Varieties of English
Script error: No such module "protected edit request".
- What I think should be changed: English English colour should be changed to exotic dialect color.
- Why it should be changed: MOS:RETAIN - the original article included the dialect variant behavior instead of behaviour, so that dialect is what should be used consistently moving forwards.
- References supporting the possible change: It would be much appreciated if the editor implementing this change could take the time to configure their browser spellchecker to American English and then check for any other English English words. For example, Oestrogen is the English spelling and is present on this page; it should be changed to Estrogen to match the American dialect. There could well be more words that are less conspicuously inconsistent.
49.180.106.148 (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC) Template:Reftalk
- File:Yes check.svg Done: I changed colouring to coloring, assuming this is what you were referring to. Let me know if I missed anything.
— Urro[talk][edits] 17:21, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for that! I underestimated the hybrid state of the article. Mea culpa. My process is:
- notice that the article does not comply with MOS:CONSISTENT
- figure out whether MOS:TIES applies
- find out the earliest dialect differentiated as per MOS:RETAIN
- adjust the article to be internally MOS:CONSISTENT
- apply the appropriate template in the Talk page
- Am I doing that right? I'm uncertain now.
- If so, then I believe this article first expressed the American dialect and so should be MOS:CONSISTENT in that, going forwards. To that end, there are these words which would change to conform to the American dialect:
- 1x centred to centered
- 3x characterised to characterized
1x colouring to coloring- 3x homologue to homolog
- 1x labelled to labeled
- 1x modelling to modeling
- 1x oestrogen to estrogen
- 1x practise to practice (two others are part of references)
- 1x recognised to recognized
- 2x vascularised -> vascularized
- 3x worshipped to worshiped
- There certainly are existing words specific to the American dialect in this article's current state:
- anesthetic
- center
- color
- estrogen
- fetus
- hemorrhaging
- odor
- tumor
- (as well as many words common in both English English and American English: criticized, randomized, etc.)
- so I think I'm right in suggesting the article change to reflect American English consistently. Please let me know if that's wrong. 49.180.106.148 (talk) 12:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2024
Script error: No such module "protected edit request". {{subst:trim|1=
Change “the Great Wall of vagina” (as in the piece made by Jamie McCartney) to “the Great Wall of vulva”. Or at least put in a note about the name change. Thanks <3
- File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jamedeus (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- https://www.thegreatwallofvulva.com/vagina-vs-vulva/
- From the official website. ZacaiNowhere (talk) 10:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Inaccurate
Re: 'The most prevalent form of non-consensual genital alteration is that of female genital mutilation.'
No. It is not. Non-consensual male genital alteration is very much more prevalent. This almost certainly deliberately misleading statement ought to be explicitly qualified with reference to the female sex.
And the opinion female neonate genital alteration can be thought cosmetic, aesthetic, or therapeutic, as male genital alteration habitually is [albeit and notwithstanding it is so stated invariably without any rigorous scientific justification, and erroneously in relation to both sexes], and need not necessarily be considered a form of mutilation, should be acknowledged.
That would address the implicit sexism vis-a-vis 'genital alteration' in this article as it presently stands. The mere prevalence of this expression of sexism does not in any way negate the necessity of it's correction. 49.186.44.135 (talk) 18:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, this paragraph is blatant sexism and needs to be corrected. Male genital mutilation is counted in the billions and obviously much more prevalent. 31.209.43.217 (talk) 10:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- File:Yes check.svg Done
- Half-kratos21 (talk) 11:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)