Medicine: Reproductive B‑class Mid‑importance

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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Reproductive medicine task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Women's Health B‑class Top‑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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Vaginitis. PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles) The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine. Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Template:WAP assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 June 2020 and 21 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): M. Tam, Future UCSF Pharm.D, OSandoval Future UCSF PharmD, WilsonVuongUCSFPharmDStud.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The causes section needs to be looked at. These are not causes, they are symptoms.

Not true. This section lists the causative organisms. It even mentions diabetes as a predisposing factor. What else do you want? JFW | T@lk 00:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

can it be sexually transmitted?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.69.6.219 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 18 January 2007

Ok, the section on identification by color goes from color to all other forms of identification EXCEPT color. I think we have a problem there. SadanYagci (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved the ICD codes to Diagnosis - better? - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 23:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is in regards primarily to Northrup's quotation: “some women respond to a perceived boundary violation with a vaginal infection.”

Sounds eerily similar to that whole "If a woman gets raped, her body will reject the sperm and she won't get pregnant!" crap that flew around a while back. This is utter bullshit, probably. It needs a more reliable source, or should at least be prefaced with "holistic medicine practitioner Northrtup..."

Excuse my language, but it is kind of infuriating that someone with an MD can still be so stupid. - Sweet Nightmares 20:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "dubious - discuss" tag had been on there since May 2015. I have just removed it and used the word "claimed" to show that this is not concretely proven. Northrup's book is a feel-good self-help book, not a professional medical text. Equinox (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I watch TV several times a day and they spam a commercial about this condition several times on TV. Are their claims validated? It seems the medication name on TV they mention should have a link to this article as well if there is not already a medication on WP that goes in details about its treatment options JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 05:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The vaginal infections article is small and not well written. This one covers the topic much better and has additional material. I propose it get merged into this one. Additionally, Vaginal infection (no s) redirects here already. MartinezMD (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a larger topic of the latter. As little content happy to support a merge. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since both topics are covering the same thing, I agree that the Vaginal infections article isn't needed. The term vaginal infections should be redirected to this article, but we should not merge any redundancy into this article. Also, since vulvovaginitis redirects to this article, the lead should state what vulvovaginitis is -- inflammation of both the vagina and vulva. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vaginitis is the description of the inflammation of the vagina. Vaginal infection is an infection. A woman can have a vaginal infection without vaginitis, and someone else have vaginitis but have no infection. These are not equivalent terms. Also, it is possible to have vaginitis and not have inflammation of the vulva.

Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 00:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What does it mean? Equinox (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments?

• Support merge. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 00:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merge - the aerobic subtopic is not too long for inclusion in the vaginitis article. — soupvector (talk) 01:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Opposed for now Not sure. One is a subtopic of the other. We have a number of subtypes of vaginitis. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure, Aerobic vaginitis is tagged as start class at present, which implies that it will probably be a fair bit larger by the time it is complete. Is there any point in merging what appears to be a legitimate subtopic if it is likely to have to be split out again? Similarly, at present Vaginitis is not over-sized, but is it likely to get that way in the near future? I would think these articles could be merged but do not need to be merged without a good reason, which has not been put forward yet. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Undecided for now, although I am usually for merging a subtopic when the main article is not too big and the sub-article is relatively small. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]