Talk:Pelvic floor

Anatomy: Gross Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to gross anatomy.

Women's Health Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Merge?

This article may need to be merged with Perineum. --Una Smith (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend not merging. The terms are related, but not synonymous. (Essentially, the pelvic floor is the superior border of the perineum, though it's a little more complex than that -- see deep perineal pouch.) --Arcadian (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. --Una Smith (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Term specific to human anatomy?

I don't really know, but I guess it's so. In many other mammals, even in chimps, the pelvis has a different shape and it lacks a "floor-like" shape, as the posture isn't upright; it's somewhat like a pelvic "canopy". Many anatomy articles are somewhat "anthropocentric", they go describing the anatomy as such but sometimes fail to mention whether the specific human trait is being described or whether it's a broader description that applies to most of the organisms that have the organ. This article probably does not states that the term does not apply to non-human or non-upright primates, but has an illustration that makes clearer what I said about how it's likely to be a term more specific to primary (i.e. not-secondary, not "primitive", but "advanced") bipedal hominine anatomy. --Extremophile (talk) 04:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not readable

This article suffers from total absence of readability, and is CLEARLY meant only for medical students. It's probably someone's rewording of a medical textbook. Could somebody improve this to the point that the rest of humanity can also understand this? Thanks In Advance.Crusty007 (talk) 00:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the beef

This article is lacking any information for men.Aperseghin (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 14:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Vaginal support structures

No need for a separate article. Article relates to structures in, around and supporting associated with pelvic floor. Content better placed in pelvic floor article. Tom (LT) (talk) 09:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support totally --Iztwoz (talk) 06:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as there are many other structures listed on the page which contribute to support and are not part of the pelvic floor; for example, Perineal body. There are also lateral and anterior structures which wouldn't be relevant as part of the pelvic floor article. Klbrain (talk) 05:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]