Talk:Vas deferens

Untitled

are they retroperitoneal?

Diameter

What is the diameter of the vas deferens, both the entire vas, and the diameter of the internal channel? I've heard it is very small relative to the walls, leading to difficulty in rejoining after a vasectomy. GBC (talk) 12:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

diameter: 2mm; lumen diameter: 0,5mm (Source: Human anatomy - Rouvière, Delmas)

Intelligent design falseness proof

These tubes do not go straight to penis but take detour along urether , and that is making it so long. Such "stupid" designs in human body should be noted in the article because this is one of the proofs for evolution. pwjbbb (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You are so stupid that you seem to be a proof of evolution, too...

Page should be renamed to Ductus Deferents

Vas deferens is an older and less correct name for the ductus deferens, implying (incorrectly) that it is a vessel rather than a duct. The newer nomenclature, and the one used in current anatomy is ductus deferens. Coolstoryhansel (talk) 01:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I know it's about 11 years late, but done! Invinciblewalnut (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Course

Some mention of their relation to surrounding structures (for example, the inguinal canal) should be added to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.12.33.204 (talk) 22:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 3 October 2021

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: Not Moved, per discussion below. Station1 (talk) 02:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

---

Vas deferens → Ductus deferens – "Ductus deferens" is the modern anatomical and proper term for this structure. It is also the common name, at least in the medical community. For some other points, see the talk page now at the ductus deferens redirect. Invinciblewalnut (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• Weak oppose: vas is still much more common. In a Google Scholar search restricted to 2016 and later, vas outnumbers ductus six to one. I am indicating that my !vote is weak because I could be persuaded by usage evidence in some other form. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: From WP:MEDMOS we have, Most articles on human anatomy use the international standard Terminologia Anatomica (TA) as a basis for the English title of an article. Editor judgment is needed for terms used where there is a very clearly used common name, in non-human anatomy, and in other problematic areas. The issue here is that while ductus deferens is the formal anatomical name in humans, this change has not been applied to other species (as can be seen from the references on that page), and I contend that vas deferens (or simly vas) is the more common name even in humans (hence vasectomy). I did a pubmed title search from 2016 to the present, and vas deferens appears in 8 article titles, with ductus deferens in none. So, vas deferens remains the more popular term even in the medical community, even though it is not the formal name. Hence this is a case where Terminologia Anatomica should not be used, as per WP:COMMONNAME. Klbrain (talk) 12:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Klbrain and their rationale. Google n-gram supports vas deferens as the more common usage by around four-fold ([1]). Tom (LT) (talk) 04:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: The current title is the common name, whilst the suggested title is the official name. Of course, we should give weight to the later on occasion, but never to the detriment of the reader, which this move would be. Sean Stephens (talk) 10:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, per the other arguments about the most common or recognizable name. GBFEE (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Good move elsewhere[2] for consistency, by the way. GBFEE (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2021 (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.

Merge with Spermatic cord

Comparing the articles, they seem essentially cover the same part of the anatomy, with spermatic cord being the preferred article name. BP OMowe (talk) 04:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose, as they are different structures. Just as humerus in the arm, the vas deferens is one component on the spermatic cord, the other including the testicular vein, testicular artery, nerves, lymphatic tissue and other connective tissue layers. Klbrain (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

And from what I gather, most of the Vas deferens article just repeats what is already stated in the Spermatic cord article, like the sections Structure, Histology and Function which brings in the other tissues. Thus (in my opinion) all the specific information regarding the vas deferens found here, could easily be contained a short section in the Spermatic cord article with a redirect from this page. BP OMowe (talk) 09:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Keep, I understand your thought but, as mentioned above, since they are not the same structure, the articles can and, I think, it'd be better to remain separated, especially when we have separate articles for much smaller and minor anatomical structures. Repetitions between articles occur very often in wikipedia, so that alone isn't an issue. Maybe a better solution would be just to imporve them; both seem like they have some potential for expansion, better sourcing etc. Piccco (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: I can see the logic behind wanting to consolidate the information, but they are indeed two different structures and as a matter of principle should maintain their individual articles. For one, the vas deferens article mentions anatomical differences of this structure in other organisms, some of which do not have a bona fide spermatic cord (or one that has the same structures). Also again as a matter of principle if merging the vas deferens, should the same not be done with the articles of the other structures contained within the cord? If so, how about for other anatomical structures like the carotid or femoral sheath which also contain individual structures within them. I agree that the better course would be to improve on the articles so that they do not appear to simply repeat one another. CubanCarlos (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)