Talk:Vocal cords

Requested move 7 July 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Despite relisting it, I see no reason to keep this open any longer. Will move all four. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

---

• Vocal fold nodule → Vocal cord nodule
• Vocal fold paresis → Vocal cord paresis
• Vocal-fold cyst → Vocal cord cyst
• Histology of the vocal folds → Histology of the vocal cords

Proposed by Netoholic in response to the requested move of Vocal folds to Vocal cords above. Opposed by Natureium in the original discussion. Nardog (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose As much as I do not possess the expertise required to assess the validity of each move, I find these four move proposals ill-motivated. Technical terms must be assessed one by one, not uniformly follow the name of a broader article. Nardog (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Nardog, if you really do not possess the expertise required to assess the validity of each move, the prudent thing to do is to abstain from the discussion and allow those with the expertise to bring forward an informed view. No such user (talk) 11:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Posting to WP:MED. Natureium (talk) 14:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. In addition --although not relevant to this specific requested move-- I would prefer Vocal cords → Vocal cord per WP:SINGULAR. --Treetear (talk) 14:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support – per WP:COMMONNAME. I proposed the main rename, but I think it's ok for me to participate on this rename, since I didn't propose it but I do think it's a good idea. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support These are nearly always called "vocal cords" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• Question does anyone contend that "vocal cords" is more accurate than "vocal folds"? Usage is clearly mixed, with systematic reviews using either term. This may be a case of different usage preferences in different subdisciplines. SLP's commonly use "folds". LeadSongDog come howl! 16:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • It would be useful to have some real-world statistics of usage for the terms specified above. However, it appears indisputable that both terms are used to at least some degree with respect to each of them, so it is likely that either naming scheme is permissible. bd2412 T 15:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Support: Thanks, Anarchyte. I just ran Google searches for “vocal cord” and “vocal fold”", excluding hits that include the words "Wikipedia" or "Books LLC". Results:
      • "vocal cord(s)" About 1,370,000 results
      • "vocal fold(s)" About 552,000 results

    For further details, including uses found in Google Scholar, Google Books, and News Archive, click on the thumbnail to the right.

    

    Google hits for "vocal cord(s)" vs "vocal fold(s)"

    "Vocal fold/folds" has only 40% of the number of hits that "vocal cord/cords" has. This strongly supports the statement that "vocal cord" is a much more frequent term than "vocal fold", even in Google Scholar.

    In reply to LeadSongDog, above: Regarding "different usage preferences in different subdisciplines", Wikipedia:Article titles#Explicit conventions says

    Wikipedia has many naming conventions relating to specific subject domains (as listed in the box at the top of this page). In rare cases these recommend the use of titles that are not strictly the common name (as in the case of the conventions for medicine). This practice of using specialized names is often controversial, and should not be adopted unless it produces clear benefits outweighing the use of common names; when it is, the article titles adopted should follow a neutral and common convention specific to that subject domain, and otherwise adhere to the general principles for titling articles on Wikipedia.

    --Thnidu (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

    P.S.: In rerunning the searches I found some results that are at odds with Google's definitions of the search parameters, but they aren't great enough to invalidate the conclusion above. --Thnidu (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

    @Thnidu:, I mean, is there evidence that "Vocal cord nodule", "Vocal cord paresis", "Vocal cord cyst", and "Histology of the vocal cords", respectively, are comparable in usage to "Vocal fold nodule", "Vocal fold paresis", "Vocal-fold cyst", "Histology of the vocal folds"? bd2412 T 03:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

    Google n-gram couldn't find any instances of "vocal fold nodule" at all. I didn't check the others. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Relisting comment: Pinging those who participated in the previous discussion in case they wish to comment here: @Tom (LT), Thnidu, and Netoholic: (though it's assumed the last supports). Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support per COMMONNAME as above. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Opening sentence

@PhilHarley77: I've just reverted this change: [1] If the opening sentence is wrong, it should be fixed, but this is the wrong way to do it. There really shouldn't be any refs in the lead, per WP:LEADCITE. Medical articles tend to have them anyway, but they should be redundant. The correct information needs to be in the body of the article. Once that is done, the material can be summarized for the lead. The opening sentence should not have any unnecessary jargon in it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Article audience?

This is a quite thorough article, but I got the impression it was written for a medical professional or medical student not the general public. Perfectly accurate, but difficult for alayman to understand. Kauaidan (talk) 20:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

You're right. The lead of this article should give an introduction that is understandable by a wide audience. We should all work on that. Natureium (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Briefly edited the first paragraph to be more reader friendly with an analogy. Prophylax (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Add new image

Hi, I just finished drawing this and it might be a good fit for this page. It's based on Fig. 2 in http://biorobotics.harvard.edu/research/heather.html

Gerazov (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

"DHT... causes irreversible changes"

I'm not a scientist by any stretch so I'm definitely not confident enough to edit this with any authority, but the third paragraph of the opening section has no citations and may be wrong. It states that DHT - a metabolite of testosterone causes irreversible changes to the vocal chords and deepens the voice.

However several studies by Imperato-McGinley et al (such as https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4432067/) on men with genetic abnormalities causing extremely low DHT and regular Testosterone levels showed that their voices deepened normally. The studies conclude that Testosterone itself, NOT DHT causes changes to the vocal chords. 139.216.33.181 (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)