This article is ratedB-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

Medicine:ReproductiveMid‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow theManual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any articleuse high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions atWikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Mid This article has been rated asMid-importance on theproject's importance scale. This article is supported bythe Reproductive medicine task force (assessed asMid-importance). Women's HealthTop‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofWomen's Health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health Top This article has been rated asTop-importance on theimportance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guidelineWikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typicallyreview articles. Here are links topossibly useful sources of information aboutVaginitis. PubMed providesreview articles from the past five years (limit tofree review articles) TheTRIP database providesclinical publications about evidence-based medicine. Other potential sources include:Centre for Reviews and Dissemination andCDC

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between29 June 2020 and21 August 2020. Further details are availableon the course page. Student editor(s):M. Tam, Future UCSF Pharm.D,OSandoval Future UCSF PharmD,WilsonVuongUCSFPharmDStud.

Above undated message substituted fromTemplate:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment byPrimeBOT (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@lk00:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

can it be sexually transmitted?— Precedingunsigned comment added by58.69.6.219 (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 toDiagnosis - 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. -SweetNightmares20:41, 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 optionsJasonHockeyGuy (talk)05:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thevaginal 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 termvaginal infections should be redirected to this article, but we should not merge any redundancy into this article. Also, sincevulvovaginitis 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]

This article is the subject of aneducational assignment at Georgetown University supported byWikiProject United States Public Policy and theWikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are availableon the course page.

The above message was substituted from{{WAP assignment}} byPrimeBOT (talk) on15:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• B-Class medicine articles
• Mid-importance medicine articles
• B-Class reproductive medicine articles
• Mid-importance reproductive medicine articles
• Reproductive medicine task force articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• B-Class women's health articles
• Top-importance women's health articles
• WikiProject Women's Health articles
• Wikipedia Ambassador Program student projects, 2011 Spring