Talk:Fallopian tube

Active discussions

Proposed merge of Ampulla of Fallopian tube into Fallopian tubeEdit

The following discussion 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.

It is not helpful to have these tiny subarticles separate from the main article. It is easier for readers to have them colocated on the main article, and will likely also mean they receive more editing attention. Tom (LT) (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I concur... see details in following section below.Lapabc (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2020 (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.

Proposed merge of Ostium/Infundibulum/Fimbriae of uterine tube into Fallopian tubeEdit

As above. Additionally, the notability of this being an ostium is entirely derived from its parent structure. Would benefit from merging. Tom (LT) (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I have professional expertise in Anatomy and concur with your suggestion. I notified the apparent author User:Mikael Häggström/User:Arcadian as a courtesy. I'm not sure how an automatic merge would work with respect to the figure in each subarticle -- it's the same one repeated with different captions. If merging is done manually, I would ask that you definitely preserve the figure from the subarticles -- it's much better than the one in the main article, and apparently better resolution too. I'm not sure that preserving the Identifiers is necessary, but if one is trying to be encyclopedic then they should be preserved. Further, the main article already lists these 4 regions, but it would be a significant loss if the details currently in these subarticles are buried in a mere list (e.g., fimbriae are cilliated, ostium is where most fertilization takes place, etc.). Merging them as subsections may be unnecessary but it might be better for them simply to appear as separate, discrete paragraphs.Lapabc (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
BTW, since you're monitoring this article Tom (LT), I believe the banner that it does "not adequately summarize key points" placed in May 2015 can be removed. Edits in mid-2019 aren't extensive but sufficient to satisfy the concerns of 2015.Lapabc (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree with the merges, and yes, it should attempt to preserve the information whenever it is not duplicated, at least for referenced material. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting all, I've performed the mergers and preserved the images and the captions. Lapabc I'm not sure what image you're referring to but I've preserved all of them, feel free to edit the article alongside me too :). I'll now perform some copyedits and caption work. @Mikael Häggström agree with your point there, let me know if you have any suggestions after the copyedits.--Tom (LT) (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

You kept the detailed image I was referring to ( by moving it to the "Additional Images" subsection. Thanks.Lapabc (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Description of microanatomy is not correctEdit

The description of the microanatomy of the fallopian tube is not correct. Please see e.g. Eddy & Pauerstein 1980 ( or Allen & Cameron 2004 (

The muscular layers are not part of the subserosa! It is rather (Tunica) serosa (with thick subserosa; i.e. mesosalpinx), (Tunica) muscularis, (Tela/Tunica) submucosa, (Tunica) mucosa (with Lamina propria and Lamina epithelialis muscosae)

or in short version

Serosa - Submucosa - Muscularis - Submucosa - Muscosa

"Lamina propria is a vascular connective tissue." --> Why? Makes not sense, does it? Furthermore, the phrase is not a good English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pagurus82 (talkcontribs) 12:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Pagurus82, regarding this? It's best to provide sources. I also wouldn't rely on sources as old as 1980 since knowledge of different anatomical features has improved since then.
I've studied the Fallopian tube less than some other female anatomical features. I might have time to look into all of this soon. In the meantime, pinging Tom (LT). Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Pagurus82, it's great to have another editor around!! Thanks for being bold and making these edits (Feel free to fix up the reference below). If you could use the more recent book as a reference it is likely to be more reliable from our point of view. Let us know if there's anything else you see - more eyes and hands the better around here. Most active anatomy editors watch the talk page of WikiProject Anatomy which can be a central venue in case people don't see your talk page messages. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Unify referencesEdit

Reference 5 and 6 are the same and should be unified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pagurus82 (talkcontribs) 12:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Oviduct into Fallopian tubeEdit

The Fallopian tube in female mammals is also known as an oviduct (citation 8 on the main page specifically mentions it as such); the description that an oviduct refers specifically to nonmammalian vertebrates is incorrect. DeemDeem52 (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Somewhat oppose. DeemDeem52, regarding this that I reverted you on? The text stated, "In non-mammalian vertebrates, the equivalent of a Fallopian tube is an oviduct." It didn't state that the term oviduct never refers to mammals. I changed "In non-mammalian vertebrates" to "In other animals." But, regardless of all that, the term Fallopian tube is human-centric and the term oviduct isn't used nearly as much for humans as Fallopian tube is used. That is why this source you referred to states, "Animal oviducts and human Fallopian tubes are a part of the female reproductive tract that hosts fertilization and pre-implantation development of the embryo." and "In mammals, successful fertilization requires that sperm should survive the extremely harsh environment of the female reproductive tract and reach the site of the newly released egg(s) in the oviduct (or Fallopian tube in humans)." Notice how it keeps using the term Fallopian tube in reference to humans only?
I'll alert WP:Anatomy to your merge proposal. I only somewhat oppose because, again, the term Fallopian tube is human-centric. And because of this, it may be best for readers to have the oviduct material in a separate article. That stated, the Oviduct article is small and could be merged into this article as an "Other animals" a comparative anatomy way. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Flyer22's rationale. There appears to be a separate term primarily for use in zoology and another mainly used in human and mammalian anatomy, both are notable enough to have their own articles and merging I think is likely to lead to unnecessary confusion. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly support. The terms are used interchangeably for human anatomy. It would be appropriate to use content from Oviduct to make a new "Other animals" section, linking the topics. Bibeyjj (talk) 11:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support the use of oviduct is often used for human anatomy. An Other animals section would be enough.--Iztwoz (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Return to "Fallopian tube" page.