Talk:Clitoris/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Stages of Arousal (Pictures?)

The article on the human penis has pictures of the penis both aroused and not. Considering the clitoris arouses in much the same way, it certainly would not hurt this article to have a similar before and after. Rip-Saw (talk) 04:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

All I've come across that shows this, at least with regard to a real-life clitoris, are the before and after pictures in the Vulva#Excitement section of the Vulva article -- File:Female sexual arousal.JPG. Flyer22 (talk) 07:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Copyediting questions

General

From Malleus Fatuorum:

Embryonic development

• "... directing development of the bipotential gonadal anlage". Where is "anlage" explained"? Is this term really necessary?
• "In the absence of testosterone, the genital tubercles allow for formation of the clitoris; the urogenital sinus persists as the vestibule of the vagina, the two genital folds form the labia minora, and the genital swellings enlarge to form the labia majora, thereby completing the female reproductive system." As the female reproductive system consists of a great more than that, should this be something more like "external genitalia"?

General structure

• ... as albuginea does not envelope the erectile tissue". What's "albuginea"?

The term "gonadal anlage" is used in the majority of the sources discussing embryonic development. It simply means a base for future development of the gonads, as anlage means "establishing/preparing something for development." See Human gonad or what Google says about it.

You mean rewording the end as "thereby completing the external genitalia"? If so, I am fine with that.

I did, yes, so I'll make that change. Malleus Fatuorum 00:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

By "albuginea," the sources mean "tunica albuginea," but I didn't link to Tunica albuginea (ovaries) because the sources didn't seem to be describing it in relation to the ovaries. They simply seem to mean "white covering"...as in "white connective-tissue." Flyer22 (talk) 23:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I like this, Malleus. But like I stated, I'm also okay with briefly explaining in parentheses what the not readily and/or easily understood terms mean...as long as we aren't excessive with that or such explanations in general. Explaining the terms your way means that we don't have to worry about that excessiveness, though. Flyer22 (talk) 00:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a matter of getting the balance right I think, between explaining in the running text and in a footnote, depending on how crucial it is to understand the term to understand what follows. We obviously also don't want to dumb down excessively, which is obviously one of your concerns. Malleus Fatuorum 00:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

In other animals

• The average cross sectional area of clitoral afferent neuron profiles was1, 479±627 μm2." Obviously something wrong with that. Should it be "was 1.479±627 μm2/

LOL, yes, let's go with what makes sense, despite what the source says. It's also obviously a typo that the word "was" is so close to "1." I should have spaced that when copying and pasting the content. Flyer22 (talk) 01:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Existence, illustration accuracy and vernacular

• Momoh (2005) is used as one of the sources for this statement: "Nymphotomia was a medical operation to excise an unusually large clitoris, but what was considered "unusually large" was often a matter of perception. The procedure was routinely performed on Egyptian women", yet what he says (on page 5) is this: "Some authors believe that it [genital surgery] was practised in Ancient Egypt, as a sign of distinction among the aristocracy ...", nothing to do with nymphotomia, which doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere in the book.

Most of that is sourced to the O'Connell source, but I used the Momoh source to also support the fact that genital mutilation was performed on Egyptian women. The Momoh source is speaking of genital mutilation, especially mutilation of the clitoris (which is what female genital mutilation is usually about). And the source does mention nymphomania, which covers nymphotomia (at least from other sources I've read). See on Page 6, where the source mentions Types 2 and 3? They cover nymphotomy. And of course I also used the Momoh source to support the line you cited above from the book. But, according to our Wikipedia article, nymphotomy is more about incision into the labia minora. So I'm not sure why O'Connell refers to nymphotomia as "a medical operation to excise an unusually large clitoris," unless she made a mistake or it can also refer to the removal of the clitoris (clitoral glans actually), or unless she defines "nymphotomia" differently than "nymphotomy." Flyer22 (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

There's something not right here, as nymphomania and nymphotomy are most certainly not the same thing. Malleus Fatuorum 16:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, nymphomania and nymphotomy are not the same thing, but I meant that when nymphomania is mentioned in sources regarding or addressing genital mutilation, it often covers nymphotomy. And like I stated, nymphotomy is covered by the Momoh source (which, as we know, also mentions genital mutilation on Egyptian women]. O'Connell also did not confuse "nymphomania" with "nymphotomy." Instead of using the word "nymphotomy," she used the word "nymphotomia," which is why I stated, "unless she made a mistake or it can also refer to the removal of the clitoris (clitoral glans actually), or unless she defines "nymphotomia" differently than "nymphotomy." Flyer22 (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

But looking at the Momoh example, that's clearly not true; Momoh uses the term nymphomania in its usual psychiatric sense: "... the practice of FGM was performed by gynaecologists to cure so-called female weaknesses – nymphomania, masturbation, insantity ...", absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the preceding text in this article, which is concerned with a "medical operation to excise an unusually large clitoris". Malleus Fatuorum 16:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm starting to get a little suspicious now, as when I checked Chalker, another source used to support the claim about Egyptian women having unusually large clitorises removed, I could find no mention either of "Egypt" or of "nymphotomy". If I were to look more closely at other citations would I find similar discrepancies? Malleus Fatuorum 16:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Since nymphomania is hypersexuality, which means "extremely frequent or suddenly increased sexual urges or sexual activity," nymphotomia was often used to squelch such desires and female sexual desire in general. But like I stated, I wasn't using the Momoh source for the "unusually large clitoris" part; I was using it to "support the fact that genital mutilation was performed on Egyptian women." But I'm okay with you removing the Momoh source from there, since it doesn't support the line exactly. Also, I may have been wrong to pipelink O'Connell's wording of "nymphotomia" as "nymphotomy." Perhaps, they are not correctly used interchangeably, especially since the latter seems to refer more to the labia minora. And even if they are, it seems more inaccurate to do so. Here is another source discussing nymphotomia. But I linked to the Nymphotomy article because the terms are so similar in wording and because it also includes the term "nymphectomy" and says it is used to describe removal of the labia as part of female genital cutting. The article appears to be an umbrella article for labia cutting that simply has not yet been expanded, including cutting of the clitoris since genital mutilation of the labia majora involves mutilation of the clitoris.

As for the Chalker source, I could have sworn it mentioned this. I've read the entire book, but I apparently got carried away when sourcing that section since Chalker and O'Connell largely cover the same thing, and I also have no problem with you removing Chalker from backing that line. You have no reason to be suspicious; I'm not the kind of editor who intentionally deceives with sources; the "unusually large clitoris" part being covered by the O'Connell source shows that. SilkTork having confirmed that the article is free of original research also confirms that. But I can make mistakes about which source backs which statement, just like anyone else, especially since I've had a lot to read on this subject. So I have no problem with you checking for other discrepancies. The more accurate the article, the better. Flyer22 (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, "nymphotomy" is indeed also used to refer to the removal of an unusually large clitoris. See this source. So it seems that while nymphotomy more commonly refers to the cutting of the labia minora, it also refers to the cutting of the clitoris. Flyer22 (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that Same-Sex Desire And Love in Greco-Roman Antiquity And in the Classical Tradition of the Westcan be considered a reliable source of medical information in general, and in particular that nymphotomy is synonymous with clitoridectomy. The OED defines nymphotomy as "Surgical excision or reduction of one or both of the labia minora (nymphae)", and gives a possible etymology of the term as deriving from the ancient Greek surgical procedure of νυμϕοτομία, or removal of the clitoris, which I think is nearer the mark. Hopefully, as you go through adding page numbers, any further similar errors will come to light and be fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 18:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

You're correct that it doesn't pass WP:MEDRS, although it is speaking of historical matters and the section we are discussing is mostly about historical matters. My point was to show that nymphotomy has been used to refer to cutting of the clitoris. I already stated that "I may have been wrong to pipelink O'Connell's wording of nymphotomia as nymphotomy" and that it is more accurate to simply use nymphotomia. Flyer22 (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

This source also shows that it can refer to the cutting of the clitoris. So maybe we should state nymphotomia without the Nymphotomy pipelink and have "or nymphotomy" in parentheses right after that. Flyer22 (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Or I should simply expand the Nymphotomy article to cover this less common definition. Flyer22 (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Not unless you can find a reliable source to back up that definition, which I very much that you'll be able to find as I don't think it's true. Malleus Fatuorum 18:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I just answered a little higher. Flyer22 (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• "Like Avicenna, Magnus also used the word virga for the clitoris, but employed it for the male and female genitals" is the ending of another section cited to Chalker, yet a search through the book reveals no mention of "Avenicca", "Magnus", or "virga". How is this to be explained? Malleus Fatuorum 18:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Malleus, above I stated that "I apparently got carried away when sourcing that section since Chalker and O'Connell largely cover the same thing." That information is supported by O'Connell, so it's not as though it's original research. If you come across the Chalker source backing any line in that section that is not supported by her, it should of course be removed. I apologize for this mistake. If you were to read both sources in their entirety, you would understand how confusion of which source covers which can be made. I no longer have the Chalker source and have only read it once, but she covers a lot of what O'Connell says. Also, can all of the Chalker source be viewed online? When you search through it, and something doesn't turn up in it, can that simply be due to not all of the pages being available online? Flyer22 (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Chalker is still cited 18 times by my count, and all of the pages are available online so far as I'm aware, although not all are viewable. As a matter of interest, is checking all of your Chalker citations something you would routinely be asking a copyeditor to do? Isn't that rather your job, or your GA reviewer's? As I said earlier, you should be picking these kinds of errors up yourself, as you go through adding the missing page numbers. Malleus Fatuorum 18:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if your search is showing everything Chalker states. For example, regarding this edit, like I stated, that is actually backed by Chalker. See this link. She also makes this clear in this and this source, which are also in the article. And, no, Malleus, I don't expect you to be making these corrections. I was simply stating that, since you are copyediting that section, I of course understand if you remove Chalker from any line that isn't supported by her. Again, I apologize for this error and will look for more in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 19:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

From what I remember, the following statement is on page 1: "Q: What female body part has over 6,000 nerve fibers, is the key to women's sexual pleasure, and has managed to elude countless female anatomy books? A: The Clitoris." And her entire book, The Clitoral Truth, is about the clitoris being the primary source of female sexual pleasure. Flyer22 (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

It certainly looks like it's part of an introduction, so if you're confident about that being on page 1 then I suggest you restore the citation with that page number. Malleus Fatuorum 20:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. And thanks much for cleaning up the other stuff. I definitely have to read the Chalker book again, and write down the page numbers for certain statements from it. The same goes for some other sources. Flyer22 (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem with not including page numbers is that it doesn't allow anyone to check unless they're prepared to sit down and read the entire book, which isn't a reasonable expectation. And with all the hooh-hah recently about copyright violations/plagiarism it's best to be on the safe side as well, and be as open as possible about what your sources actually say.

Obviously I'm not trying to suggest that you've deliberately copied from or misrepresented any of your sources, but you need to give others the opportunity to check for themselves, particularly when you submit an article to an independent review process like GAN. Malleus Fatuorum 20:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand. This has definitely been a lesson learned on why providing specific page numbers is important. Flyer22 (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

July 25th edits

I saw Malleus Fatuorum's question here ('what about handling at least some of these more obscure technical terms like this?') with the use of the {efn} footnote template. I was reminded of the way mouse-over tooltips can be made to appear like this: "directing development of the bipotential gonadal anlage." This markup is mentioned here in the MoS under 'HTML elements'. The only problem is that these are technical terms, not abbreviations, so I don't know if this is better or worse. --Nigelj (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that up, Nigel.

Malleus, any thoughts on that? I like the paragraph you added to the lead about the structure, although I'm not sure if it's best to mention the number of nerve endings in the lead or only leave that to the body of the article, especially since, due to a compromise with SilkTork shown in the GA review and that aspect's relevance to both sections, it's mentioned in the body twice; once in the "General structure" section, and once in the "Clitoral and penile similarities and differences" section. Also, where it says "the head of which," should a comma be before that? I mean, comma-wise, should it be "The clitoris is a complex structure, the head, or glans, of which is roughly the size and shape of a pea."? Or should only one comma be in that sentence, right after "structure"? We should probably put "glans" or "head" in parentheses since they mean the same thing. Flyer22 (talk) 00:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Only one, which is that I don't like it. As for the estimated number of nerve endings, we can easily drop that, as it doesn't really matter for the lead. I'm slightly bothered about the "It [the glans] or the clitoris as a whole" though; which is it? As for your question about the need for a comma after "structure", would I be correct in assuming that you're American? American's just seem to love commas. I like the sentence the way it is, but if you don't, then feel free to change it. Malleus Fatuorum 00:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

As you've seen, I changed it to where it uses only one comma and has "head" in parentheses. Yes, mentioning that it has more nerve endings without specifying the number is better for the lead in this case. Thank you. As for "the glans or the clitoris as a whole"... Well, not knowing "which is it" is why I haven't specified. It bugs me as well, but sources say differently and I'm therefore being careful with that information, just as I am with other information in the article where the sources have a different take on something (such as, though fewer, sources that say the clitoris and penis have the same number of nerve endings, or Yang et al. challenging the conclusion that the glans is not formed of erectile tissue). And, yes, I'm American, LOL. Caught red-handed. And by the way that you spell summarizing as "summarising," I take it that you're British? Flyer22 (talk) 01:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, maybe both the glans and the clitoris as a whole have more nerve endings than any other body part. If I knew if that were the case, we wouldn't need to mention both in the lead, since "glans or the clitoris as a whole" is in reference to 8,000 nerve endings. Flyer22 (talk) 01:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I am, yes, so you'll have to watch my spelling. :-) Couldn't we just say in the lead that the clitoris has more nerve endings than any other part of the body? Doesn't seem to matter too much in the summary where they actually are. Malleus Fatuorum 01:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I suppose saying that is fine. That's what I've meant when I've used "clitoris as a whole," though. Some sources say "the glans" and others just say "the clitoris." However, it's highly likely that by "the clitoris," they mean "the glans" since that's the way most people think of the clitoris. But since there is doubt, I suppose that just saying "the clitoris" is fine for the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 02:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Here, did you remove "as well as their possible biological function" due to what we discussed about my feeling that it covered vestigiality? Either way, in my opinion, due to that removal, the vestigiality line you added now fits better in the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 02:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I removed it because the sentence as written just didn't make sense to me, but if it's also resolved your concern about my addition of vestigiality then that's a bonus. Malleus Fatuorum 03:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

To answer your latest question, the issue I have with bundling is that I'm not used to citing that way, and, if going by that style, it means that I would have to cite that way when adding new material that I'm backing to multiple sources. Filling in the page numbers is also a pain because multiple or several pages of the same source may be used, and therefore it's not just one page that's being cited from the source. And right now, there are question marks for the pages in the bundle you created. Flyer22 (talk) 03:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You really should be providing page numbers, as without them it's very difficult to check on the accuracy of your sourcing, and you certainly wouldn't get through FAC without them. It's actually easier than the old way, as you don't have to remember any randomly chosen names, the citations are automatically gathered together; single or multiple pages aren't a problem. I put the question marks there because you had failed to provide page numbers. Malleus Fatuorum 03:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I've been detecting a certain amount of resistance to any change from you right from the start, so it would probably be better if you found yourself another copyeditor; I'm simply not interested in working on anything but the very best. Malleus Fatuorum 03:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Malleus, when I cite Google Books sources, it's often one page that I'm citing and there is usually a url link provided with it for people to see. And when it's more than one page, it's usually pages in a successive row...also shown by the url link. But if it isn't, and I'm citing from more separated parts of the book, the reason that I don't like providing page numbers for each piece of a reference is that I don't like having the same reference as a different reference -- Citing multiple pages of the same source -- like what is done in the Lesbian article. It makes more sense to me that the same reference is cited multiple or many times without citing it as a new reference, which is what repeated citations is for. But as for "the new way" -- citing as bundles -- I see that multiple or several pages are not the problem I made them out to be (having a reference cited as one page number, or as a specific range of page numbers, when it's referencing text from other parts of the book as well), although it is citing a new reference each time. And when it comes to journal sources, citing the page numbers is never usually an issue, and of course never one for news sources. I'm hardly ever interested in getting an article to WP:FA status, but I am open to your bundle formatting for this article. I was only expressing concern.

Speaking of concern, you stated that you've "been detecting a certain amount of resistance to any change from [me] right from the start." I ask: Why...because I mentioned that SilkTork stated that the copyediting of this article "will need to be subtle and careful" and I agree with that? Because I haven't agreed with all of your changes? It's not as though I have disagreed with every change you've made; in fact, I have been okay with the majority of your changes thus far. Am I going to question some changes, especially big ones, just like I would in a GA or FA review? Yes. And it's not as though drastic changes are typically expected during a copyediting process, especially for an article that has already been described as well-written by SilkTork and a great contributor from WP:MED, not that any of your changes so far have been drastic. SilkTork stated that it's basically about copyediting now. And I stated, "I am hoping to not have to debate any matters during the copyediting, since copyediting is more about wording and formatting than reformatting and content disputes." Flyer22 (talk) 05:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Malleus. I just want you to know that I very much appreciate your copyediting skills. For example, I somehow overlooked adding a summary of the clitoris's structure to the lead...but you spotted that quickly and remedied the situation. I'm certainly not trying to be difficult, and, like I stated, I have been okay with most of your edits thus far. Although more likely to occur when dealing with a contentious topic such as this, there will be times when I will object to changes made by a copyeditor. But it's only because we are different individuals and will therefore sometimes have different views on matters. So don't let my occasional objection discourage you from working on this article. I'm collegial and am usually open to compromising. I just won't agree with everything a GA or FA reviewer or copyeditor says, just like I won't for any other editor on Wikipedia. I do now see that bundling is probably for the best, and am okay with you going ahead and doing that for this article. I will fill in the page numbers as best I can. Flyer22 (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, then we can move forwards again. Unfortunately though I'm not going to be around much until Friday as my brother is getting married tomorrow. Malleus Fatuorum 17:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Referencing and Google books

Editor Malleus recently removed |accessdate= from {{cite book}} templates with |url= fields pointing to Google books. My question is: is that in compliance with a guideline someplace (there are so many of those that finding the right guideline sometime is a monumental pain—yeah, yeah, getting of my soapbox) or personal preference?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It's in compliance with common sense and custom. The point of accessdates is to allow the possibility of retrieving an archived version of a web page, so are you really asking whether Google Books pages such as [1] are archived? How could they be, as it's the result of a search? But try finding an archived version for yourself if you don't believe me. Added to which Google Books links aren't stable, and whether or not they're available to read can depend on your geographical location. In short, the Google Books links in themselves aren't that useful, particularly when they're just to snippet views, and the accessdates are completely useless. Think about it another way if that helps; the point of separating the citations and bibliography is to prevent the book details having to be repeated when different pages from the same source are cited (I already raised the issue of missing page numbers above), so what page would the Google Books link be to anyway? Bottom line: the source isn't Google, it's the book, and it's the book that needs to be properly cited, not the web site. Malleus Fatuorum 00:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It is also true that the point of |accessdate= is to identify the moment in time that the |url= did in fact lead to the cited information because nothing on the intarwebs is forever. Without the |accessdate= information, the reader doesn't know if that source ever really existed. Yeah, he never really knows anyway even with the |accessdate=, but at least it's a little clue that the link was, at some time, valid. I'm inclined to include |accessdate= simply for that reason—and it doesn't hurt anything.

Your example google books link is archived: The origin of life and process of reproduction in plants and animals .... To find it, I did a google-search for part of the book's title (The origin of life and process of reproduction in plants and animals with the anatomy). Second item on the first results page. Clearly, not all google books ref / cites will be this easy to find. I'll replace I've replaced the Hollick citation in the article.

As for referring to multiple google books pages without duplicating bibliography entries, one might do what I've done here. One could then point |url= at the front cover (&pg=PA225 part of the url left off) or leave the |url=google url off entirely. I am, by the way, wholly in your camp with regard to unnecessary duplication of information. This is why I like {{sfn}} or {{harvnb}}.

A handy tool that cleans up a google books url and creates a ref / cite from it is Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

But the link you've given isn't the same as the link in the example I gave, which isn't archived, and neither are any of the others. And why have you repeated the page numbers in the {{cite book}}? Malleus Fatuorum 23:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I have added a header to this conversation to separate it from Copyediting questions.

Of course my link above is different from the link you provided—the scan of the book is in an archive so it has a different url but it is the same scan. Further:

1. at the upper left corner of the archive's page there is this: The Origin of Life ... On openlibrary.org. Follow that link.
2. at the bottom of the Open Library page is this: Initial record created, from Internet Archive. Follow that link.
3. at the bottom of the Internet Archive page is this: Source: http://books.google.com/books?id=lh1MAAAAMAAJ&oe=UTF-8
4. compare the |id= portion of the Source url to the |id= portion of your google books url: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lh1MAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA225&dq=Clitoris+in+animals&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JKfoT5M5pOLZBdK1uDs&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Clitoris%20in%20animals&f=false

■

It's a bit of a stretch to claim that links targeting different web pages are actually linking to the same thing. Malleus Fatuorum 13:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

You wrote: the point of separating the citations and bibliography is to prevent the book details having to be repeated when different pages from the same source are cited ... , so what page would the Google Books link be to anyway? My example shows how those shortened foonotes with page numbers can be used with a {{cite book}} template that includes a link to a google books scan of the book. All of the shortened footnote templates link to the single {{cite book}} template in the bibliography. The citation includes direct links to the referenced pages (the repeated page numbers)—all without creating a new {{cite book}} in the bibliography for each referenced page. Did this not answer your question?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

My question was clearly rhetorical; I am perfectly well aware of the correct way to cite sources without repetition, as evidenced by my 30 or so FAs. So please do not continue in your efforts to patronise me by teaching me how to suck eggs. You are distorting the truth in your efforts to justify the unjustifiable, and it simply won't do. If you take the trouble to look you'll see that it was me who introduced that bibliography section, so don't let's pretend that you know better than me about anything. Malleus Fatuorum 13:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I have moved my signature to the bottom of my words and above Editor Malleus's post.

I am perplexed. It is the book that is being cited. There are at least two locations on the internet where a scanned image of the example book is available to online readers. Of course they will reside at different urls—that is the nature of archiving. There is a provenance connecting the archive.org copy to the Google books copy. How is this a "stretch"? Go to both of the example urls. Put them on separate monitors so that you can make a direct comparison and compare. Look at particular places where a character is missing, or part of a serif is missing. In this case, you will find those same anomalies in the other. It is clear that the current Google copy has had some post-processing because the lines of text aren't distorted as they are in the archive.org copy. But the words are the same and that is the point that matters. And, the criticisms about Google books' instability and availability, which you have noted, do not apply to the archive.org copy.

I don't think that your "question was clearly rhetorical". Had the rhetorical nature of your question been clear, I wouldn't have gone to the trouble of answering it; or I would have returned a tongue-in-cheek reply. Similarly, you have now said that you think that my posts have been patronizing. I don't do patronizing. You asked a reasonable question. I haven't seen an implementation of {{sfn}} and {{cite book}} that answers your question. So I thought about it and discovered an answer that I've documented here for anyone who might be interested.

I acknowledge that you are the editor who brought in §Bibliography and short format footnotes. Nowhere in any of my writings have I denied your part in that, nor have I credited someone.

I would like to know where I am "distorting the truth in [my] efforts to justify the unjustifiable".

I find the rest of your last post on the topic unnecessarily hostile and unbecoming.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Like I care? You were clearly trying to teach me how to use the {{sfn}} template, which I find insulting as I was the one who introduced it into this article. Malleus Fatuorum 20:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

You are free to believe whatever you choose to believe. You are wrong.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Bibliography

Hollick, Frederick (1902). The origin of life and process of reproduction in plants and animals. D. McKay. pp. 225, 227. Retrieved 26 July 2012. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Number of clitoral nerve endings compared to the number of penile nerve endings

Various reliable sources state that the clitoris has more nerve endings than the penis or any part of the human body, an estimated 8,000. But in the WP:GA review, SilkTork mentioned that the foreskin contains between 10,000 and 20,000 nerve endings, using this source. I stated "that's been debated all over the penile-related articles, such as Foreskin, Circumcision, Genital modification and mutilation, etc., and in addition to not knowing how accurate that information is, I did not want to bring that drama to this article. Just look at the drama that goes on at the Circumcision article."

However, if the foreskin does contain that many nerve endings, and various reliable sources I've read over the years have at least stated that the foreskin has a lot of them, this means that the human penis in its natural state has more nerve endings than the human clitoris, and sources stating that the clitoris has more are due to the typical circumcised penis containing around 4,000. Here are more sources about this subject: This and this.

And in the Wikipedia Circumcision article, it states: A 2002 review stated that "the genitally intact male has thousands of fine touch receptors and other highly erogenous nerve endings—many of which are lost to circumcision, with an inevitable reduction in sexual sensation experienced by circumcised males." The authors concluded, "intercourse is less satisfying for both partners when the man is circumcised."

In contrast to that, it also relays: In January 2007, the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) stated "The effect of circumcision on penile sensation or sexual satisfaction is unknown. Because the epithelium of a circumcised glans becomes cornified, and because some feel nerve over-stimulation leads to desensitization, many believe that the glans of a circumcised penis is less sensitive. [. . .] No valid evidence to date, however, supports the notion that being circumcised affects sexual sensation or satisfaction." A 2010 review reported that "despite conflicting results in some of the historical observational studies, most recent articles do not show evidence of adverse effects on sexual function."[51] A review which analysed the data from eight clinical trials concluded that the "evidence suggests that adult circumcision does not affect sexual satisfaction and function."

So, like those who have worked on the Circumcision article and articles directly related to it, I'm not sure what to believe. Does the foreskin contain between 10,000 and 20,000 nerve endings? And if it does, should I simply note this fact in the Clitoris article and leave thoughts about reduced sexual pleasure out of it? It seems that it goes to reason that if the foreskin does have that many nerve endings, then a lot of penile sensation and sexual satisfaction is lost due to circumcision. Certainly, a substantial amount of nerve endings, whether erotogenic or non-erotogenic, are lost...even if not between 10,000 and 20,000. And this should therefore be mentioned in this article, especially in the Clitoral and penile similarities and differences section. I do point out that specific numbers of foreskin/penile nerve endings are not mentioned in the Circumcision article or other related articles. So maybe I should simply state something along the lines of "However, the uncircumcised penis may contain a significantly larger number."? I don't feel that mentioning the number of clitoral nerve endings and that it is estimated to have more than any other human body part should be removed from this article, which is another option. Like I stated, various reliable sources mention the 8,000 number and the "more than" aspect, and it's very relevant information for the reader to know that the clitoris has 8,000. As well as more nerve endings than any other part of the human body, if that's the case, or rather only in the case of circumcised penises. Flyer22 (talk) 22:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

After discussing this with two editors, although I also already felt that the following was best before discussing it with them, I only added that the uncircumcised penis may have more. In the "Clitoral and penile similarities and differences" section, beside the "though some sources state that there are as many in the clitoral glans as there are in the glans penis or the penis as a whole," I added "or debate whether the uncircumcised penis has more." I used sources from both sides of the issue and a neutral one.

I will now archive this section. Flyer22 (talk) 23:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Reason for no edit option?

There is no such option on the main article page. No reason is given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.214.202 (talk) 06:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, IP. This article, like the Penis and Human penis articles, is indefinitely semi-protected due to the excessive vandalism or other unconstructive edits these articles face whenever they are unprotected. Registered editors, when they click on the "Edit" option, can see that "Excessive vandalism" is the reason given for the indefinite semi-protection of this article. Flyer22 (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Reference formatting and questions beside references

Welcome back to the article, Trappist the monk. Regarding this edit you made, I fixed the Colombo part as, yes, it was a typo.

Regarding Jonathan Balcombe, I'm pretty sure that he is also Jonathan Peter Balcombe. But why does this need clarification in the Bibliography section, and what type of clarification would be added to that section?

Regarding the Blackledge source, I also was thinking that it isn't needed for the Clitoral and penile similarities and differences section, but I used it there and let the link go to the table of contents so that readers can see that it discusses Josephine Lowndes Sevely; I'd forgotten what page it discusses her on.

As for putting specific page numbers in the Bibliography section, I'd removed specific page numbers from there because those are covered by the sfn and sfnm templates and that section is supposed to tell readers the number of page numbers the books have. Flyer22 (talk) 19:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed the Blackledge source from the aforementioned section and tweaked its url link away from the table of contents of the book; also seen in that link, of course, is my removing specific page numbers from the Bibliography section. Another reason that it's not good to have specific page numbers there is because with the sfn or sfnm templates, I might point to different pages. For example, you specified the Archer & Lloyd source to page 85, but I cite pages 85-88 in the article. I was also told by Br'er Rabbit to keep specific page urls out of the Bibliography section as well, but, in some cases, it seems needless to create a special reference for the References section that will take readers to the specific page...such as those where the reference is only citing one page, and it is more work.

Anyway, if you don't mind me moving the specific page numbers out of that section, the only other issue we have is the Jonathan Balcombe issue; but again, I don't see why that needs specification. Some authors go by their full name for one book, but not for another, and it's not our duty to specify to readers if it's the same Jonathan Balcombe; not unless we're directly mentioning him in the text of the article. Flyer22 (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

In that previous edit of mine, I missed adding an extra bracket for the Saladin source, but fixed it. Going back to Balcombe, though, I can see why you question whether or not they are the same author, since this and this "About the author" section describes them differently. But I highly doubt that these are different authors sharing a common first name, a not-as-common last name -- Balcombe -- and writing about the same topic. Flyer22 (talk) 20:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's twice today

I pointed out Jonathan Balcombe / Jonathan Peter Balcombe because they are similar and if they are, in fact, one in the same person, for consistency I think that they should be so identified. I used {{clarify}} becuase it is a way to add a note to other editors at a particular place in an article where a comment can be made about the article. Clarification may not be the purpose of the note (though it usually is). It must work, it got your attention.

When I changed the {{cite book}} parameter |pages= to |page=, I did so in accordance with the template's usage document for those parameters. Stating the number of pages in a referenced work using |pages= is specifically proscribed. It is to be used when more than one page is cited. The page number I chose to use in those cases was the page number provided in the google link because those links lead to a specific page.

Though it pains me to say this because of past experience, I'm in agreement with Br'er Rabbit: bibliography cites should generally not include page numbers because that is the function of the {{sfn}}-style templates. However, when there is a link to google books that lands, not at the cover, but at some particular page, then I think that the cite should have a matching page number so that the reader following that link isn't unduly surprised by where the link goes. The logic here is the same as the use of the external link icons – to give the reader some clue about what to expect when following the link.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Trappist the monk. Sorry for the edit conflicts. About {{clarify}} for Balcombe, I still don't feel that it's needed; like I stated, it's not our job to determine if these two are the same person. We don't have to research this and see if it's the same author and then add a note about this in the Bibliography section. If a reader wants to know if these two are the same person, they'll do their own research about that. But I'm sure that most of them won't be checking for the hidden note. I'm not sure how it helps other editors, other than simply knowing that the same person wrote both books. While I'm fairly certain that they are the same person, I'm not 100% certain and therefore I certainly can't leave a note stating that they are one in the same.

I understand your reasons for adding specific page numbers, since the links you added them for are pointing to specific page numbers. But looking at a lot of other Bibliography sections, the specific page numbers aren't given in those sections and are rather left to the sfn and sfnm templates. And like I noted, giving a specific page number in the Bibliography section can be inconsistent with what is cited in the sfn and sfnm templates; the same can be stated of the url links, of course, but I usually have that matter worked out. The reason that I've added specific page number urls to some parts of the Bibliography section is because of what I stated above; to elaborate on that: For book sources, when I use harvnb in the References section, that allows me to point to a specific page using a url link. But not when I'm WP:Bundling a book source with one or more other book sources; this is where the specific page link in the Bibliography section comes in handy. You added specific page numbers, one for each link, because the Google links go to those pages. But refer to the Shere Hite source, the one that is currently #65, that takes readers to a specific url page number; it cites pages 277–284 even though the link starts at page 277. It starts at page 277 because of course a Google url link can only go to one page, not multiple ones. It would be unnecessary, and clutter, to cite all those pages using different url links. Br'er Rabbit demonstrated to me how to use harvnb with a link (whether specifying one or more pages) without putting the specific url link in the Bibliography section. But I was never told why this is okay to do in the References section (as in the main References section), but not in the Bibliography section. I can only assume that the reason some editors are against that is because it's pointing readers to a specific page instead of the general information about the book.

On a side note, I'd thought you were also asking if the Blackledge source is needed in the Bibliography section since it's also present in the main References section. I was going to state that it's definitely needed because the sources in the Bibliography section are the bases (the book citations in full) and the sfn and sfnm templates specify the page numbers (sometimes with a link); those templates can't work without the book being listed in the Bibliography section. But it seems that you already know that. You're certainly more versed than I am with regard to reference formatting. Flyer22 (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Blackledge: Yeah, my mistake. Topic closed.

I wonder about the use of multiple different reference mechanisms. Too many, methinks. There are the old standbys: <ref></ref> and <ref name="" />; there are {{r}} templates; there are {{sfn}} templates; there are {{sfnm}} templates. I think that the {{sfnm}} templates can and should go away. Bundling can be done another way.

Here is some text that cites Shere Hite with three page-specific cites and one non-page specific-cite. This pretty well mimics the article content. Here in this simulated article text are three {{r}} templates and one {{sfn}} template. In §References there are three named <ref></ref> pairs inside the {{reflist}} template. Each <ref></ref> pair has a {{harvnb}} template with a link to the first page of the range at google books. §Bibliography has Hite's complete citation. I removed the |pages=512 parameter. I've trimmed all of the URLs.

This is some more simulated article text that includes a bundled reference. This reference is a standard {{sfnm}} template with all of the Hite references and google books links. The problem with this reference is that all of the link URLs are embedded in the article text which clutters up the article. Additionally, the {{sfnm}} template must be duplicated every time that bundled reference is cited in the article.

An alternative, is to bundle the references in §References. Then in article text, refer to the bundled cites with <ref name="" /> or {{r}}. This bundle of references is named "Hite bundle" at the bottom of {{reflist}}. I think that implemented this way, bundled references keep individual page numbers and links in §References where they belong, §Bibliography does not contain page links or numbers, and Bob's your uncle.

Am I making any sense?

Example source

===References=== {{reflist|refs = <ref name="Hite 2003 pp277–284"> {{harvnb|Hite|2003|pp=[http://books.google.com/books?id=s3OZaVn2wfkC&pg=PA277&lpg=PA277 277–284]}} </ref> <ref name="Hite 2003 pp261–264"> {{harvnb|Hite|2003|pp=[http://books.google.com/books?id=s3OZaVn2wfkC&pg=PA261 261–264]}} </ref> <ref name="Hite 2003 p99"> {{harvnb|Hite|2003|p=[http://books.google.com/books?id=s3OZaVn2wfkC&pg=PA99 99]}} </ref> <ref name="Hite bundle"> {{harvnb|Hite|2003|pp=[http://books.google.com/books?id=s3OZaVn2wfkC&pg=PA261 261–264]}}; {{harvnb|Hite|2003|pp=[http://books.google.com/books?id=s3OZaVn2wfkC&pg=PA277&lpg=PA277 277–284]}}; {{harvnb|Hite|2003|p=[http://books.google.com/books?id=s3OZaVn2wfkC&pg=PA99 99]}}. </ref> }}<!-- end of reflist -->

===Bibliography=== *{{cite book |last=Hite |first=Shere |authorlink=Shere Hite |title=The Hite Report: A Nationwide Study of Female Sexuality |publisher=[[Seven Stories Press]] |year=2003 |location=New York, NY |isbn=1583225692, 9781583225691 |accessdate=2 March 2012 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=s3OZaVn2wfkC&pg=PP1 |ref=harv}}

Example as rendered

References

Bibliography Hite, Shere (2003). The Hite Report: A Nationwide Study of Female Sexuality. New York, NY: Seven Stories Press. ISBN 1583225692, 9781583225691. Retrieved 2 March 2012. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if the quote from Carroll 2012 belongs in the §Bibliography. Perhaps a §Notes with her quote and the quotes from others now in both §Bibliography and §References is in order.

At the very least, when ever a quote is used, it should have a page reference.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Google books snippet-view links don't seem really helpful. For example at Dennerstein, the original google books link failed to support the quote with a "not found" error. I've fixed that, but still, the complete quote cannot be read in the snippet.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

As you've likely seen by now, I removed the clarification notes about Balcombe, per above.

I'd figured that removing page numbers (not page-specific urls) out of the Bibliography section was the way to go, and I see that you've started doing that...as seen here. I'm fine with that as a compromise, especially since it seems that most Bibliography sections on Wikipedia don't even include the page numbers. But if we're going to remove page-specific urls out of the Bibliography section, I feel that the page numbers for that section should be added back.

Regarding the use of multiple reference styles, I'd felt that they are needed. I mean that my thinking has been the following: "the old standbys" are needed for non-book references. The r template is needed when just citing one book source while directing the reader to a page (or pages)-specific url. And the sfnm template is needed for bundling the books...unless we were to bundle them the old-fashioned way that is shown in WP:Bundling, which I'm against for this article, or unless bundling them the way that is shown with your "Hite bundle" example. The sfn template is needed in cases where there isn't a page-specific url that can be used with the r template in place of the sfn template. But I'd also thought that the sfn and sfnm templates could only be used for books and journals; looking at the pages about them, however, it appears that I'm wrong about that. In general, I'm definitely against "the old standbys" being used for the whole article, LOL. I like to cite multiple or several references for some lines (especially for lines that are or may be controversial, but also simply to provide a range of sources on the topic)...and using "the old standbys" would equate to severe citation clutter in anything beyond three citations. Sometimes three is even too much. As seen in the article, the citation clutter of three or four are only beside the lines that include non-book citations...since it has seemed to me that they can't be put into the sfnm template. The r and sfn templates cause citation clutter in the same way. I love the sfnm template because of the ability to bundle as many references as I want, although I try not to get carried away with it. You've shown me another way to bundle using the sfnm template, and it's a plus since it allows the urls to be included. It's clear that this would work for bundling any group of sources, and I thank you for teaching me about it. I could go for that, if you'd prefer we do that when bundling instead of having the page-specific urls in the Bibliography section. But, like you stated, "The problem with this reference [style] is that all of the link URLs are embedded in the article text which clutters up the article." As for your other alternative -- to bundle the references in References -- I could also go for that...since it appears that it would work for more than just bundling the same reference...but also for bundling a combination of different references. For either of those, I would rather you implement them. I've only recently, since the GA nomination of this article, gotten familiar with the sfn and sfnm templates and it would take me longer than you to implement either of these changes. Plus, as you've seen, and as noted in the #Good Article congratulations section above, I recently significantly tweaked and expanded this article; the formatting and researching combined took me several days and I'm a little exhausted from that.

As for one of the Hite references not going to a specific page number, that is because the Hite source as a whole supports the text. Hite's research generally supports Kinsey's findings about the female orgasm. Speaking of, I should extend the Archer & Lloyd source from pages 85-88 to pages 85-92...since page 91 begins speaking of Hite. I also don't give a specific page number for three references to Elisabeth Lloyd; currently, this reference is #82, Lloyd 2005. The reason that I don't is because either most of the reference supports the line it's placed beside or the whole reference does. But unlike the Hite references, I left a note about this in the article text for the Lloyd references.

As for the Janell L. Carroll quote, it's actually a combination of quotes...which I attempted to demonstrate by using ellipsis. The page numbers for them are page 118 and page 252. This wasn't mentioned in the Bibliography section, because, as noted, that section isn't for specific page numbers and the sfn template already names the specific page numbers for this content. So what do we do about your request for a page number for these quotes?

Point well taken about the Google books snippet-view links. Flyer22 (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, regarding the Rebecca Chalker (2000/2003) source, yes, that should obviously be 2000/2002 for the date or just 2002. The reason that two dates got combined is because the article originally had the book dated to 2000, as seen in this version of the article, and then I included a different book version that I suppose I believed was from 2003 (unless 2003 was a typo on my part that I stuck with)...when it's actually from 2002. I included both dates because the 2000 date for the source that was originally in the article made it clear to me that this book was first published in 2000. Flyer22 (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

One thing at a time. Without objection, I'll continue to massage §Bibliography then work on one of the other two projects that we've identified: move quotation text from §Bibliography and §References; convert bundles to the alternative method described in the example above. Whatever is left gets done last.

Links to google books snippet-view shall fade away.

I will leave the Archer & Lloyd fixes to you.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

LOL, yes, one thing at a time in this case. Which alternative bundling method are you planning to use? As noted, I'm fine with either of the bundle examples (I mention "either" because it seems that you only presented two alternative bundling methods). Reference formatting-wise, I mainly just want to continue using bundling, template bundling in particular, in this article (per my comment above) and want to keep page-specific urls with the book sources. As that can be done without them being in the Bibliography section, I'm fine with that, although it does create more references in the main References section. But, like I stated above, if we're going to remove page-specific urls out of the Bibliography section, I feel that the page numbers for that section should be added back; there's no longer a need not to have them there in that case. Flyer22 (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

For the Janell L. Carroll quote, page 264 is also used. Flyer22 (talk) 01:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The link for page 252 above is coming from the 2012 version of the source; I can't remember if it's on the same page for the 2009 version of the source. Flyer22 (talk) 02:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Reference formatting section break 1

Flyer22 wrote: But, like I stated above, if we're going to remove page-specific urls out of the Bibliography section, I feel that the page numbers for that section should be added back; there's no longer a need not to have them there in that case.

I'm not sure what you mean.

Are you suggesting something like this in §Bibliography?

• Hite, Shere (2003). The Hite Report: A Nationwide Study of Female Sexuality. New York, NY: Seven Stories Press. pp. 99, 261–264, 277–284. ISBN 1583225692, 9781583225691. Retrieved 2 March 2012. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)

If so, then I must rise in opposition. Including referenced page numbers in the citations in §Bibliography is redundant because those page numbers, with page-specific links to google books, are already listed in §References.

Clarify me please.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The listing of both the 10-digit and 13-digit ISBNs breaks the link to Special:BookSources. Per {{cite book}} I'll be deleting the 10-digit numbers where both are listed.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not suggesting that specific page numbers be in the Bibliography section. I'm against that, which is part of the reason I started this discussion (per above). I'm talking about the page numbers for the books as a whole, as in how many pages are in the books. If we remove page-specific urls out of the Bibliography section, then I don't see the point in not having the page numbers for the books there. The reason you'd added specific page numbers to the Bibliography section is because of the page-specific urls.

Going back to the topic of bundling for a moment, though, I'm worried about something: If we bundle references the way that you did for the Hite bundle above, then any time we use that refname, it will cite all the Hite page numbers instead of just pointing readers to the specific page or set of pages for whatever specific text. Unless you're stating that we can specifically point them to the correct page or set of pages when using such a bundle.

On a side note, there is a downside to using page-specific url Google Books links at all -- the fact that the pages for them will eventually become unavailable or the links will eventually break and take readers to the "About" sections instead. But I still prefer to use the urls for as long as they can be used. Flyer22 (talk) 17:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This from {{cite book}} (emphasis added):

pages: Pages in the source that supports the content; separate page ranges with an en dash (–); separate non-sequential pages with a comma (,); do not use to indicate the total number of pages in the source.

This is why I'm removing |pages= parameters from the {{cite book}} templates in §Bibliography except where the parameter specifies a number of pages – there have been a couple of those so far.

Yep, any time {{r|Hite bundle}} (or <ref name="Hite bundle" />) is placed in the article, all of the referenced pages are made part of §References – looks like ^[6] in the rendered example table above. But that's what we want isn't it? In the cases where we only want to reference page 99, we'll use {{r|Hite 2003 p99}}. Parenthetically, this does not mean that if I were to add another {{r|Hite bundle}} to the example, that we'd get reference^[7]. Rather, we'd have the ^a and ^b after the ^ – just like any other named reference with multiple instances. Also parenthetically, reference^[5] was created with a {{sfnm}} template.

Clear?

Morganstern & Abrahams 1998 is the first cite in §Bibliography that I've found that links to a non-previewed page. So far all of the others have been available for preview. Google giveth and google taketh away. Perhaps they will give again.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

There are two Realdo Colombo citations to two different web sites. As far as I can tell, there isn't much need to have them both. One is in §Bibliography, the other in §References. The cite in §References used his town (Cremonensis) as his last name which may account for the two citations.

Something I've been considering this morning is the creation of a separate subsection of §Bibliography for journal articles. There are quite a few of them. Might reduce the clutter in §References.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I figured that there must be a rule that we shouldn't use the page(s) field to to indicate the total number of pages in the source.

As for the Hite bundle ref name, yes, we want all of the referenced pages made part of the References section. But I don't see any example in the article where all the Hite pages would need to be made available beside a sentence or paragraph, except for that one instance where I've used Hite as a reference without giving a specific page number because the source as a whole covers the sentence (as noted above). But such a bundle would work in a case where different references are stacked together like that...since it's telling readers that "All these references support this sentence or paragraph."

I'm fine with you removing one of the Colombo references. I pick the 1562 (in Latin) Colombo reference, since it's not used for text in the article and since you've asked for a translation for it. The 1559 one used in the article is only citing the name of the book, so it doesn't need a translation.

I don't mind a subsection of the Bibliography section for journal articles.

Regarding this, as you've likely seen by now, I removed the "failed verification" tag. The sentence is talking about the Kinsey Reports and I used that reference to note that this research involved interviewing thousands of women; it supports the "Through his interviews with thousands of women" part of the line. The reference states that this research was based on 11, 000 interviews, and those interviews were with men and women. The Kinsey Reports article also makes clear that this research included thousands of people, men and women. That reference is not used for the rest of the sentence. So why did you add a "failed verification" tag for it? Flyer22 (talk) 20:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It's good that you're checking up on me. I erred.

The Hite example above is just that: an example. It is intended to show how multiple different cites can be bundled and still allow google books page links with minimal clutter in the article text. "Hite bundle" could have been named anything and could have {{harvnb}} templates pointing to any number of disparate citations in §Bibliography. The bundle can be referred to with the standard <ref name=""/> html tags or with the {{r}} templates so that the bundle can be referenced multiple time without incurring the clutter penalty of entire {{sfnm}} template clones.

I've done one conversion from {{sfnm}} with this edit. Same princlple as the Hite example above.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 01:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's no doubt that it's good to have you cleaning up things as well, such as this fix that changed "Baskina" to "Baskin." The Kinsey line now looks like this. For the Pomeroy, Franklin, Fahs...and Tavris sources that I just added (seen in that link), I don't know if those are the actual years these sources were published because the years in the "About" sections for these sources aren't placed next to a year field; they are rather placed next to the publisher's field. Do you mind evaluating these years and seeing if we should stick with the ones I listed for them? Also, the Tavris sfn template isn't completely working for me; I did something wrong; if you fix that, I'd appreciate it of course.

The bundling that you implemented with that edit looks fine. Feel free to bundle anything that can be bundled so that the references appear to be reduced to one, two or three references. Seeing citation clusters of four looks like too much to me now. I might eventually remove some unneeded references, as I have before, seeing as references add kilobytes to an article (though kilobytes added by references shouldn't be taken into account when considering WP:SIZE) and make an article open slower than it should.

Also, I'm sorry for any edit conflicts that I've been causing for you when editing the article lately; it's gone vice versa and is indeed a pain. Flyer22 (talk) 04:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I just removed one source that I've been meaning to remove, for the reasons stated in these edit summaries: [2][3]. Flyer22 (talk) 04:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Trappist, where did you get the year 2010 for the Sex and Society, Volume 2 Marshall Cavendish source? The preview that we're using indicates that we're using the 2009 version. Flyer22 (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

From the google scan of the book, top of the page.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see. It's confusing that the "About" section doesn't have 2010 listed as the year it was published. Flyer22 (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The link in the Yang, cold, et al. citation points to figure 3. The cite is instanced 12 times. Should they all be pointing to figure 3?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. I'd decided to take a day off from Wikipedia; I often take a day or more off from this site when I see nothing that requires me to be here; by "requires," I mean reverting vandalism, fixing edits, disagreeing with an edit (or edits), replying to queries that seem as though they need replying to swiftly. And then I became busy with matters on Wikipedia yesterday.

Anyway, no, the Yang source of course shouldn't point there every time. I'm against it pointing there at all, since the source is supporting more than just that information in the Clitoris article; it should be general, not pointing to any one specific part.

Are you going to remove all page-specific urls out of the Bibliography section? I ask because some are still there, but others are not...even though you cleaned up all the urls in that section. With the sfn templates not allowing url links, I'm wondering if those should be discarded like you've discarded the sfnm and r templates.

Also, good idea using the "In use" tag to avoid edit conflicts. I took a chance in not using it for these edits, but, considering the times that you have usually been editing the article these days, I felt that I was safe to go ahead and make them without it; I was right (it seems), but I'll make sure to use it when there is a very likely chance that you are already editing the article. Flyer22 (talk) 10:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for taking away the remaining sfn templates and making it so that the references they cited now direct readers to page-specific urls.

I'm not against you having divided the quotations from the references and placed them in a Notes section. But I'm also not entirely sure that I like it because it seems unnecessary when they can simply stay combined with the references, it adds what looks similar to citation clutter, and I'm not sure if it's usual Wikipedia practice to put quotes in a section titled Notes (that rhymes, LOL). Why do you prefer having the quotes separated? Flyer22 (talk) 06:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Quotations are specific things that should not be placed in a container of general things. Citations in §§Bibliography may be referenced multiple times from different parts of the article and each can specify a different page for a different topic. A reference to a citation may not be about the subject of the quote. For example, Carroll 2012 p.118 is linked from Note 1 (currently reference item 27). The associated link in §References takes you to Carroll 2012's complete citation in §§Bibliography. But, you can get to that complete citation from three other links in §References (currently items 4, 59, and 82), none of which point to page 118. Those three other links may not have anything to do with the quote.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Quotations are combined with references all the time on Wikipedia, and, after all, there is a quote field so that editors have the option of combining a quote with a reference. You have a good point about not combining the quote when a reference is also being used for something that has nothing to do with the quote. But I'm still not sure if it's good or simply okay practice to place quotes in the Notes section. Flyer22 (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Just because quotes are ofttimes combined with references doesn't make the practice right here in this article (or ever, for that matter). The quotes had to go somewhere so I put them in §Notes which is preferable to having them in §Cited works. Maybe another name for §Notes would be better.

Without discussion, in 2006, an editor added |quote= to {{cite book}}. Though quickly reverted, the originating editor reverted with the edit summary "revert. I need it, and it doesn't break anything". The editor who tried to keep |quote= out of {{cite book}} until suitable discussion could justify the need for it was unable to gain enough support for any meaningful discussion. The upshot being that we now have the |quote= parameter.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

My point was that it's not wrong to combine quotes with references. Despite whatever took place to have the quote field in {{cite book}}, there is now a general consensus on Wikipedia that it's fine to add a quote to {{cite book}}. And it's not just {{cite book}} that allows the quote field, obviously.

I combined quotes with the references that don't have those quotes easily accessible. For the Carroll source, for example, I was citing more than one page, as you know, but the url link can't go to each of those pages. You have now taken care of that by bundling with page-specific urls. So those quotes are no longer needed in the article. With regard to the "70–80 percent for general statistics" information about female orgasm, the quotes about that should stay for easy verification of that text. The Flaherty source, for example, went to a Google snippet for additional verification that it states that 70-80% of women require direct clitoral stimulation to achieve orgasm, but you removed that url because we agreed that Google snippets aren't much help. Although, in the case of the Flaherty source, the snippet showed enough to verify that quote, which kind of made the quote easily accessible. For the Kammerer-Doak...and Mah, Kenneth; Binik sources, the quotes should also stay since it's quick verification and people have to subscribe to those sites to read those sources. Even though the Lloyd source is combining two quotes, those quotes are no longer needed since the reference now specifically points people to the page-specific urls to read up on that. I don't mind much if the Dennerstein quote -- about the clitoris returning to its normal position and size -- is discarded. And the quote about tribadism and the quote by Colombo -- which needs translation -- aren't needed.

As for renaming the Notes section, I don't want to diverge from WP:LAYOUT, so if that section is better titled Notes, I want to stick with that. Flyer22 (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Earlier this hour, I tried to add the following reference to the General structure section, trading out the reference beside the "it forms as part of the external folds of the labia minora" line for it: <ref name="Sloane_Kahn_Crooks" />. This would of course be bundled as: <ref name="Sloane_Kahn_Crooks"> {{harvnb|Sloane|2002|p=[http://books.google.com/books?id=kqcYyk7zlHYC&pg=PA31 31]}}; {{harvnb|Kahn|Fawcett|2008|p=[http://books.google.com/books?id=tTFYIh-HcYYC&pg=PA105 105]}}; {{harvnb|Crooks|Baur|2010|p=[http://books.google.com/books?id=MpRnPtmdRVwC&pg=PA54 54]}}. </ref>. It showed up fine in the preview except for the <span class="Pfunc_expr_unexpected_operator">Expression error: Unexpected < operator</span> error that showed up; the error is caused by the measurement statements in that section. Do you know how to fix this? Flyer22 (talk) 01:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Removing the referenced-laced note from that section seems to be what fixed the problem. Flyer22 (talk) 09:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)