Talk:Skene's gland

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Skene's gland article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1: 60 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Anatomy: Gross Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to gross anatomy.

Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's Health Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Federative International Committee on Anatomical Terminology

Saidmann, regarding this? Are you aware that, per WP:MEDDATE, history sections are not subject to a strict application of WP:MEDRS? Also keep the "Other sources" section of WP:MEDRS in mind when editing medical and anatomy topics.

As seen ~~here~~ here and here, Headbomb sourced the Federative International Committee on Anatomical Terminology material months ago. Did you look for sources for it? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to refer to "History sections often cite older work" in WP:MEDDATE. This hint means that here older sec sources may be valid. The source that I deleted, however, is no secondary source. It is not even a peer-reviewed source. --Saidmann (talk) 16:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saidmann, nowhere does WP:MEDDATE state or imply that history sections must include secondary sources or at least a peer-reviewed source. I've edited many medial and anatomy articles, and we include primary sources in many ~~of them~~ history sections. Sometimes media sources will be in them, just like they are often in our "Society and culture" sections (which also often are not subject to a strict application of WP:MEDRS). It is not like a secondary source or a peer-reviewed source is needed to relay the Federative International Committee on Anatomical Terminology matter. Furthermore, WP:MEDRS does not ban use of primary sources. We are cautioned to use them sparingly, under certain circumstances. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The section you quoted definitely refers to reviews and nothing else. --Saidmann (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source that Headbomb quoted is a dead link. Yes, I looked for sources, but in vain. --Saidmann (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That a source is dead is no reason to remove it, or what is supported by it. Further, This book still exists, and still is ISBN 9781285401027, and the link still works. Likewise this website still works, even if it's flash-based. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That issue is now done. Well, it is our job find sources, not the readers' job. I will continue to delete stuff that I fail to make transparent. --Saidmann (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"I will continue to delete stuff that I fail to make transparent." The repeated removal of reliably-sourced content against consensus is usally grounds for a block, so I would advise you against doing that. In the meantime, I have reverted to a prior version. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saidmann, regarding what Headbomb stated, see WP:Dead link. And as for deleting stuff, do read our WP:Preserve policy; you should take that policy seriously. It is not a guideline. It is a policy.

As for the section I quoted? It has often been misunderstood by editors who are not as experienced editing medical and anatomy articles as WP:Med editors are, which is why it has been revised more than once. One way it was revised was by taking out its previous emphasis on "two or three years." Even with the "five or so years" piece that is there now, it doesn't mean that sources we use must be within five years. WP:MEDDATE is about whether the material is up-to-date. If, with regard to anatomy or another medical topic, something that was true years ago is still true today, the source reporting on that does not need to be removed simply because the source is old. If the source can be updated, then, yeah, it's best to do that for the sake of appearance...so that readers know that the material is up-to-date. But WP:MEDDATE is about whether the material is out of date; we look at newer sources to assess if the material is out of date. In any case, the claim that WP:MEDDATE refers to reviews and nothing else is incorrect. It quite clearly states that its guidance is "appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or where few reviews are published." In other words, there are some topics, like this one, that have few reviews and may therefore need to rely on primary sources or include more primary sources more than a well-studied area. It tells us to "Prefer recent reviews to older primary sources on the same topic." Not to exclude primary sources. It tells us that "If recent reviews do not mention an older primary source, the older source is dubious. Conversely, an older primary source that is seminal, replicated, and often-cited may be mentioned in the main text in a context established by reviews." So no ban on primary sources. And, again, nowhere does WP:MEDDATE state or imply that history sections must include secondary sources or at least a peer-reviewed source. History sections are given as an exception to strict application. I don't see why you would think that the "History sections often cite older work" aspect means "no primary sources." We use Gray's Anatomy, a primary source, in some of our anatomy articles.

Anyway, as you know, I added this 2008 "Terminologia Histologica: International Terms for Human Cytology and Histology" source, from Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, page 65, for the material in question. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting to a previous version

Headbomb, regarding this? I wouldn't have reverted that far back. Saidmann and Zefr did improve the article, and I'm okay with this version. After reviewing the changes, can you be okay with that version? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly indifferent, just against the spurious removal of sources based on flawed logic. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I restored the article to the improved version. I will certainly ~~report~~ support you on any unjust removals. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely meant "support", not "report." Sorry about that. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Support you on arguing against, reverting, and/or reporting any unjust removals." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

I don't know squat about phonetics or how these IPA templates work, but to me the pronunciations in the IPAc-en template (which suggests the vowel sound is like the I in kind) and the respell (SKEEN) are not consistent with each other. We may want to also check the IPA template at Alexander Skene. Larry Hockett (Talk) 13:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]