Talk:Epididymal hypertension

Requested move 28 November 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. While there's a find for an appropriate gender neutral term, there is a consensus to move as proposed, primarily WP:NCMED. The raised issue of the condition being present in both male and female not being represented in the article title can be resolved in the content. – robertsky (talk) 14:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

---

Blue balls → Epididymal hypertension – Hello. I've recently restructured and added information on how the phenomenon manifests in women. As such I think that it is appropriate to rename the article to the official name, "Epididymal hypertension", as it is gender-neutral. Normally I don't really mind "gender neutrality", but since epididymal hypertension occurs for both women and men it seems more logical to use the gender-neutral name for it. Sprucecopse (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans (talk) 00:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Sexology and sexuality has been notified of this discussion. Remsense留 17:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Support. Redirects are still perfectly functional—when one types in 'blue balls', they will get this page whether on Google or Wikipedia. I think the case for logically broadening the term is very much strong enough so that it outweighs the point that it is replacing what is easily the WP:COMMONNAME (for one half of the phenomenon, at least.) Remember, while WP:COMMONNAME is often the beginning and end of naming discussions, and is an important guideline, it is merely a guideline, not a logical necessity to follow. To me, this is a clear case where it matters less than other factors.

If one thinks the present title is the best one possible, I can think of two possible arguments one might have for that:

1. One thinks the phenomenon—I am not remotely qualified to speak on this, but as far as I can tell, being more or less identical both in anatomical cause as well as phenotype—should have a separate article for when it occurs in people without testicles.
2. One does not see the over-specificity/omission inherent to the common name when applied to the general condition as being enough of a problem.

Neither of these feel adequate to me. For the latter point, in a vacuum it implies in the title of the article that the condition the article describes is only possible in about half of all people. I feel like this is an irresponsible implication, even if it is dispelled when reading the article itself. Remsense留 22:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Now supporting any adequately sex-neutral name. Remsense留 16:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Light oppose. I'm honestly very conflicted on renaming this article. On the one hand I understand where the want for this change comes from and agree with it, but blue balls is also such a more common name for the phenomenon and the guidelines are for article titles to be using the commonly recognized names. The term blue vulva does also exist and is mentioned in the article, and is obviously based on the same terminology of blue balls, which I feel is reason to possibly keep the name as the more common slang term. It could just be split into having separate blue balls and blue vulva articles but that also feels like a very pedantic choice. However overall I just don't feel like renaming this article is the right move. Sillypilled (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll join this in a light oppose for the same reasons. Killuminator (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

To preface, I really appreciate that your answer is so elaborate. Like you mentioned splitting the articles is to me overly pedantic, since the terms both refer to the same concept. I feel like renaming it wouldn't affect the searchability of the article, as redirects would obviously be in place from "blue balls" and the less known "blue vulva". Furthermore it seems like using the common name is not always a rule which is followed, looking at Google Ngram "Erectile dysfunction" is mentioned significantly less than "Impotence" (though context to how the latter is used is of course missing, so I might be wrong on this). Then again, renaming the article is in itself somewhat pedantic of me, since the medical name for the phenomenon is mentioned first in the article lead anyway.

What exactly does "light oppose" entail in contrast to just "oppose"? Sprucecopse (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

(Generally, this process is understood as establishing consensus, not simply 'voting'. As discussions continue, the value, strength, and conviction of various editors and arguments are evaluated together to determine whether consensus exists, and if so, what that consensus is. So, when I say 'light oppose', it's roughly a 'I can live with it going the other way', or something similar, which is distinct when it's being evaluated in context. Other editors likely characterize it in another way.) Remsense留 23:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The one thing with renaming this article though is that the more proper name is like not recognizable at all to people who don't already know what it is. While it wouldn't affect searchability, I could also imagine if someone was googling for information on blue balls and epidymal hypotension came up, they wouldn't recognize that term at all. With the erectile dysfunction example, impotence is also a commonly known term. Sillypilled (talk) 15:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

When one gets a Google result for an article, there's usually a snippet from the lead or infobox, which almost always includes the alternate name. I think this is a point to consider, but I think it's more minor of an accessibility issue than you've presented here. Remsense留 16:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

That's fair, I'm a bit tired and honestly did not think about that lol Sillypilled (talk) 18:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Changing my light oppose into a strongly oppose the renaming of the article to Epididymal hypertension and light support for renaming the article to Blue balls and blue vulva in light of discussion below. It's a bit of a clunky title but it's probably the best solution there is. However, I would also like to throw out also light support of splitting the article into Blue balls and Blue vulva. Considering we have to put "and" in the title, the idea of a split into one article on blue balls and one article on blue vulva seems less strange than it did before. However, they are very similar subjects (obviously) so I don't know if it's reasonable for both of them to have separate articles? At the same time though, it would allow for better discussion of how the phenomena are treated differently (ie blue balls is an extremely popular cultural concept but generally people don't know anything about blue vulva, and there's less research on blue vulva). Even though they're the same thing with different body parts, our understandings of them are pretty different, and it could prevent confusion between things specific to one or the other / accidental conflation of issues relating to only one of these phenomena. Would be curious for other opinions however since I'm still unsure of this. Sillypilled (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Support – I respect the counterargument about recognizability, but to me, having a title that covers the entirety of the topic and does not exhibit systemic bias (by overemphasizing a perspective most relevant to men) ultimately weighs heavier. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

In light of the discussion below, move to Blue balls and blue vulva. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Support - I have to agree with the commenters who point out that gender neutrality weighs heavier than the common term in this case. If the common term does not accurately describe the phenomenon the article is about, then it is definitely worth considering a change when a better term exists. I do not see a strong argument for maintaining the current title given these circumstances. aaronneallucas (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I have to reply to myself, to correct myself, Epididymal refers to the Epididymis, the term “Epididymal hypertension” is therefore not gender neutral. I am unsure if there exists a gender neutral term, the other synonym to the phenomenon, “Sexual arousal orchialgia”, is not gender neutral either. Sprucecopse (talk) 12:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

In that case, I still support the name change, but I now no longer see it as the clear option unless a sex-neutral term exists. Remsense留 15:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Rename to Blue balls and blue vulva, as nobody has found a sex-neutral term. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

My current opinion is that we could rename it to Genitopelvic hypertension, the only issue is that this term has rarely, if ever, been used. There is therefore no actual source which refers to this phenomenon as such. However, "epididymal hypertension" is described as a "genitopelvic pain" in this peer-reviewed study (Source: https://academic.oup.com/smoa/article/11/2/qfad016/7148610?login=false), and apparently, according to this article, the only major study to examine the subject. (Source: https://www.bodyandsoul.com.au/relationships/sex/are-blue-balls-real-and-can-people-with-vaginas-get-them-too/news-story/d427dbb783e74e7811e9819b0b1a4ef9)

"Genitopelvic hypertension" is not explicitly mentioned, but "Genitopelvic pain" is too broad of a term to be used to describe the phenomenon in my opinion. There is also the option to rename the article to "Blue balls/vulva", as it is referred to in the study above, though I personally favor the former of my suggestions to the latter. Sprucecopse (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Generally, the use of slashes is strongly discouraged, except in specific situations. Remsense留 19:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support original move to Epididymal hypertension. I don't think we should be using informal names for medical conditions anyway, and the sex issue is an added factor. Seems like the scientific name is the one to go with, even if it is less frequently used than the informal name.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Amakuru, but this name, though medical, is inaccurate for the scope of the condition, as discussed above. Remsense留 14:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

    Perhaps, but it's a big improvement on the current title, which also doesn't cover the full gamut and is slangy in nature. The article [1] simply calls it "epididymal hypertension" without qualification as whether the vulva version is excluded from that, so I think would be fine. Failing that, the study calls it "blue balls/vulva" so that would be a second choice if there are genuine objections to the medical title.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

    I think the characterization as slang is overly subjective: it's the WP:COMMONNAME. Remsense留 16:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

    "without qualification as whether the vulva version is excluded from that" a woman has no epididymis, the medical term "Epdidymal hypertension" therefore refers to hypertension in a part of the body only men have. However, yes, an article I found did mention that women can also experience it, so I suppose that the name is viewed as arbitrary in that sense. Sprucecopse (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: What is the common name? What do reliable sources call it? So, relisting for further input. Reading Beans (talk) 00:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

• I support Blue balls and blue vulva also it is gender neutral but still WP:COMMONNAME. Otherwise, I would support Epididymal hypertension in order to be gender neutral. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 04:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support move to Epididymal hypertension, given the gender issue lets just go with the medical terminology. Polyamorph (talk) 08:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  As discovered above, due to the epididymis being a part of the testes, "epididymal hypertension" is not gender-neutral. Remsense留 08:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think that matters, as it's simply the medical term for a condition that both sexes can experience. It's not for us to change medical terminology. Polyamorph (talk) 10:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  It's not, though—a condition only affecting the testes can't be experienced by a person with ovaries instead. Remsense留 10:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think that can just be resolved by editing the article to say similar genital vasco congestion can occur in females, commonly referred to as blue vulva. Polyamorph (talk) 10:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  So, how does that make the situation better than currently? It's strictly worse, because it's not gender-neutral, nor even the common name. Systematic medical terminology is not inherently better than the common name here, because they're both describing exactly the same thing—really, if they're not vaguer common names describe a topic better, because more people know what they mean. "Epdidymal" means nothing to almost everyone. I should've checked this first, WP:NCMED says to use scientific or recognised medical names instead of ordinary names. Fair enough. In lieu of a scientific name that actually describes the scope of the article, I think the common name is better, since they are equally inaccurate, and using a medical term may be worse, because it further insinutates its use would be gender neutral, whereas "blue balls" would be more obviously limited. Most people don't know what an "epdidyma" is, so they may accidentally acquire the idea that people with ovaries have one. Remsense留 10:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  WebMD and an independent GP surgery (the current cited references for the female version) are not the best sources. Moving to the medical term and clarifying there is a similar genital vasco congestion has been reported in females with reference to the medical literature (e.g., [2]) would be sensible in my view. Polyamorph (talk) 12:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.