Talk:Menstrual cup

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2019, between 5 September 2019 and 10 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sofia--szigethy.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2019, between 26 September 2019 and 9 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sedersta. Peer reviewers: Ellis414.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Summer 2019, between 1 July 2019 and 23 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ldolle, Aoka222, YooCo, Elizabeth Hays. Peer reviewers: Brandon James Ross.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

chronology doesn't make sense

Leona Chalmers patented the first usable commercial cup in 1937.[39] Later menstrual cups were patented in 1935, 1937, and 1950.[40][41][42]

How can later patents be dated earlier than the first patent?! Could someone either explain it (in the article) or correct it? Thanks, Ibn Battuta (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I have changed it to "Other menstrual cups were patented". I think that's correct/better. Well spotted, Ibn Battuta. EMsmile (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Foundations II 2019 Edits for Group 4a

1. Add disadvantages and challenges to using menstrual cups under the 'Use' section, including some initial concerns such as pain, discomfort, or reproductive harms
2. Update and add onto the 'Safety' section about adverse events and risks of infection, TSS, and IUD dislodgment

YooCo (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the updated incidence of TSS for 2019, I think it might be improved by changing the wording for the total cumulative incidence of TSS from "was" to "have/has been" as the incidence is multiple events rather than in a single event. Changing risk status from "was" to "is" as the risk is current. Changing "versus" to "when compared to" for the risks compared to high absorbency tampons. You could also remove the incidence covered in the paragraph immediately prior as this paragraph appears to be an update. Otherwise, this draft reflects a neutral point of view, your points are verifiable, the edits are consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style and I don't see any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation. Your edit substantially adds to the article by providing updates to the incidence of associated risks. Brandon James Ross (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Note editing tags, FYI Health policy (talk) 04:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

For this sentence, "In addition, studies have shown that infection risk does not significantly increase with the use of menstrual cups, compared to the use of pads or tampons", is it saying that there is less risk with cups than tampons and pads? This was slightly confusing to me.

Sources: Good source added, it is a secondary source. One question: Is the information following the first cited sentence also from that source?

Met their goals for safety update of toxic shock syndrome.

The addition is of neutral point of view and edits follow wikipedias manual. (Foley1115 (talk) 04:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC))

Completed the goal of adding to the safety section with relevant information on toxic shock syndrome. Properly cited sources and neutral tone was kept.

Do.shelly (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Improve images

I'm proposing to change the current diagram under "Use" to this image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Menstrual_cup#/media/File:Menstrual_cup_insertion.svg. The current diagram is messy and visually confusing in comparison to the one I have linked.Sofia--szigethy (talk) 17:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Student Editor

I am thinking about creating a link to the Feminine Hygiene article on Wikipedia.--Jasminrw (talk) 06:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

This Article is very misleading, biased and inaccurate

Due to Politics and environmentalism, and marketing most sources discussing Menstrual cups are very biased and make misleading claims about other menstrual products while making outlandish claims about the benefits of Menstrual cups and omitting the very serious risks associated with its use. While the Wikipedia article isn't as biased as most sources about Menstrual cups it is very incomplete and needs a lot of revision. The research is outdated and most of it is anecdotal. In the course of the next few weeks, I will try to make it more complete and cite new studies and factual evidence about Menstrual cups and other menstrual cups. This article contains also inaccurate and outdated information about Tampons and pads. One example of unreported risks is the increased risk of prolapse caused by suction as well as the increased risk of Endometriosis caused by the reflux of menstrual blood into the Cervix. There is also an increased risk of TSS when compared to tampons due to the Oxygen capacity of Menstrual cups with the Silicone Cups being the most prone to develop TSS. Scripteladora (talk) 05:31, 16 November 2019 (UTC)Scripteladora

References

Add an image on the "use" page

I think we should add images for the insertion of menstrual cups.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Femmecup_7-Fold.jpg --> 7 fold https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Femmecup_C-Fold.jpg --> C fold https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Femmecup_Punch-Down-Fold.jpg --> punch down fold https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Femmecup_Lotus-Fold.jpg --> Lotus fold — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wpdus0525 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Add more related products

I think adding a few more related products would be better for the 'Related Products' section. I found an article about 'Femmycycle' which is an innovated menstrual cup invented by a doctor. I added the link of the article below.

http://www.journaljammr.com/index.php/JAMMR/article/view/15349 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wpdus0525 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Environmental impact

One of the biggest reasons why menstrual cup should be more accessible is that it is environmentally friendly. You did include a section about the advantages of the menstrual cup and also the environmental impact it has, however, I think it would be great if you add more information from this article. This article includes how non-reusable sanitary pads and tampons impact the environment negatively. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344919303179?via%3Dihub — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wpdus0525 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Sizing

@Mvolz:, regarding your restoration in this edit of material unsourced since last August, you mentioned in the summary that you will add some sources. I'm looking forward to it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot I am wondering if the text for the different sizes still needs some more tweaking. That detail about the age of the woman (over 30, under 30) might be outdated. I don't have a very solid reference at hand but e.g. the website of Ruby Cup explains it quite well. It depends on the flow and the type of cervix, not the age nor the vaginal births: https://rubycup.com/products/ruby-cup-medium Might need to wait until a proper publication comes out with this. Meanwhile, I think the wording should be clear that age alone is not a decisive factor for the size of menstrual cup required. EMsmile (talk) 05:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

menstrual cups for young girls

I highly recommend that we change the article to include a section about young girls using menstrual cups and their impacts on young girls health. if one of you Wikipedia users Hood edit this article to include that section, that would be amazing. but if you can't, I would be happy to do it for you. 166.198.21.72 (talk) 12:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the recent change to terminology

I think it's worth reconsidering if the thickness of the walls is the best way to distinguish types of menstrual cups. I appreciate the need to distinguish now that both types are more integrated within the article. However, I find thin-walled cup and thick-walled cup confusing as they're lengthy, easy to mix up terms that I didn't come across in any of the research I did when adding information to this article. They also don't describe what are in my opinion the most obvious differences when looking at or using the cups: their shape, placement, and function.

I propose using one of the following sets of terms:

1. Cervical and vaginal cups is the terminology used by "Menstrual cup use, leakage, acceptability, safety, and availability: a systematic review and meta-analysis", a review cited 15 times throughout the article, and that seems to me to be one of the more definitive pieces of research on this topic. The downside of this method of distinction is that I don't recall seeing it used outside of journal articles.

2. Bell-shaped and disc-shaped is the terminology used by several smaller studies as well as many online and news articles cited by this article. Given the terms' wide use and visual nature, they're likely more helpful to readers.

3. Finally, cups and discs are used by some manufacturers and online articles as distinct subcategories. However, this could be confusing as some cervical cups are labelled simply as menstrual cups.

I don't think there's a perfect answer to this question as each option has downsides, but I think there are more useful and widely used distinctions than the thickness of walls available to us.

This was my first talk page post, so please let me know if I did anything wrong or could have phrased this better. Ghosthugsincoming (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Ghosthugsincoming, and welcome to Wikipedia! Sorry I didn't see this yesterday. You didn't do anything wrong, this is a very good talk page post. If you want my attention specifically, you can ping me by typing {{u|HLHJ}}, or posting on my talk page, linked from my signature at the end of this post (I pinged you in the first sentence here). The "View history" link at the top of the page will show you the usernames of recent editors. This is in no way necessary, though.

I think you're right. I was never that enthused for "thick-walled" vs. "thin-walled", but I found existing terms even more problematic, mostly for reasons you mention. To consider each possibility in turn:

1. That is a very solid WP:MEDRS source, but I agree that this does not seem to be common usage. Also, while marketing diagrams show bizarrely cavernous vaginas with cups at the outside end, it seems from recent in-vivo imaging that that vaginal cups sit around the cervix, while cervical cups are "aligned along the long axis of the vagina" (to use the description of this paper). That's... unintuitive. Also, since I can't reliably *type* the difference between a cervical cup and a cervical cap, I'm not sure I should expect readers to read it.
2. I strongly agree that succinct visual-spatial terms are probably better. I like "bell-shaped". The flowers we call "bell-shaped" are if anything more varied in form than these menstrual cups, and yet the term is useful and intuitive. Cast bells are also thick-walled and of variable cross-sectional profile, like the menstrual cups. I'm not quite so keen on "disc-shaped", because I think of a disk as having circular symmetry and bilateral symmetry thru the plane that is a circle, not as being something that is convex on one side and concave on the other (some contraceptive diaphragms were once disc-shaped, probably because dipping a hoop in latex is an easy manufacturing process). I thought "disc-shaped" cups were mostly more bowl-shaped, unless squished flat. The range of diameters overlaps with bell-shaped cups, though, and some of the bells are fairly shallow and round-bottomed and arguably more bowl-shaped than the "bowl-shaped" cups. "Dish" is a doublet of "dish"; I considered "dish-shaped". But an increasing number of these menstrual cups have asymmetrical rims and removal dimples, which makes them very non- disc- or bowl- or dish-shaped, and I wanted a future-proof term.
3. I didn't use the cup/disc distinction for exactly the reason you say, and because health authorities tend to call both "cups". Plus I'd have to either split this article in two, or invent a new descriptive term for both shapes of thingamajigs, and call this article something silly like "elastomeric vaginal menstruum-catching vessels".

It seems to me that the main difference is that the bell-shaped cups do not squish compliantly in-vivo, while the membrane-on-a-hoop ones do, so that they don't create a significant empty void (I will be adding this info soon). These compliant cups meet the mechanical-engineering and anatomical definitions of wiktionary:diaphragm#English, but confusion with contraceptive diaphragms would be bad, and the definition of wiktionary:membrane#English fits pretty well, too. Would "bell cup" and "membrane cup" cover the distinction, and be succinct and visual-spatial terms? They are less directly descriptive than wall thickness, but I think sacrificing that for readability and clarity is a good trade-off.

Please let me know if anything I've said is off-base, incomprehensible, or plain wrong. HLHJ (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi HLHJ, thank you for the welcome and for explaining all of this!

To comment on your points:

1. The actual placement is good to know. Thanks for sharing! I agree that vaginal and cervical cup isn't the best option, especially given the potential for confusion with cervical caps.
2. Coming back to this, I agree with you that bell-shaped works better than other options I'd listed here for thick-walled cups. I hear your points about thin-walled cups not being perfectly disc, dish, or bowl-shaped. I think it would be okay to go with a term that's not perfectly accurate, provided there are visual aids to show the actual shape. In the first point, the inaccuracy is misleading about the actual functionality of the device, but I think that's not the case here.
3. Definitely, the disc/cup distinction is confusing. I think integrating both types of cups throughout the article made it better, and I get why you made the change.

The term diaphragm came up many times in papers, but I agree that the potential for confusion with the contraceptive method makes it a bad option. I agree that bell-shaped works, but I still don't feel settled with membrane cup. It's a good descriptor for what it is, but my hesitation is that it's not a term I've seen used before. I'm still reading through Wikipedia policy pages to understand how editing works and what the voice of Wikipedia is. I had no clue there was this much structure behind the scenes, but it makes sense for such a huge project! My impression at this point is that a Wikipedia article is supposed be an overview of a subject that represents widely held opinions or agreed upon facts by reputable sources. Introducing a new term feels like divorcing this article in some ways from its sources. Hopefully, I wrote that in a way that makes sense. I don't fully understand the policies yet, so I could be absolutely off base here, but that's my current feeling. I don't know where to go from here because cervical cup and diaphragm-shaped could both be confused with contraceptive devices, and disc is a somewhat inaccurate term used by some manufacturers and online articles but only rarely by academic and regulatory sources. Is there a way we could ask someone for a third opinion on this?

Thanks again for the welcome and for sharing your thoughts on this! Ghosthugsincoming (talk) 02:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind comments on the integration! It's still very much a work in progress, I fear.

You are quite right about introducing new terms. The latitude for novel terms used within an article is greater than for article titles, but it's still to be avoided where possible. Even in article titles, it's permissible to use descriptive terms where the common-use terms are likely to cause confusion (or non-existent). I tend to agree that "bell cup" and "membrane cup" are both prehaps insufficiently descriptive.

Terms in common use are actually preferred to terms used by academics, provided they are conceptually clear, since an encyclopedia is aimed at people seeking an introduction to a subject (with a generl adversion to marketing terms designed to give a misleading impression). I'm a lot happier with "menstrual disc" than "disc-shaped cup", because the former is found in sources and I don't recall seeing the latter, and because the item isn't disk-shaped (I have used "disc" in the article, as a common term). I've been trying to add descriptive alt-texts to all the images that need them, but it's common in low-bandwidth settings for Wikipedia to be read without images, even by fully-sighted people (I've done it myself), and they usually don't see the alt-texts. So if we went with an inaccurate description, I think we'd have to be very explicit about it in the main text. A descriptive term that is inaccurate or misleading is obviously an inferior choice.

The Gynaeseal called itself as a "diaphragm tampon" in the literature; do you have any other literature terms we could go through? "Contraceptive disc" is a term in use, and, I think, translated into some other languages; "vaginal diaphragm contraceptive" (which is more description than name) is also used.

How about describing their placement, and saying "transverse cup" and "longitudinal cup"? This description is solidly supported by sources. A less-Latinate version would be "crossways" and "longways", or "crosswise" and "lengthwise", etc.. Or "cross-vaginal" and "along-vagina". "cis cup" and "trans cup" would be even more Latinate, but, I think, liable to cause confusion. Perpendicular/subparallel? Thwartwise and alongwise would probably sound odd to everyone but seafolk.

There are lots of ways we can ask for a third opinion on this, and the most obvious formal one is an RfC. But we're culturally expected to discuss an issue throughly first and explore all the options; an RfC is more what you do when you've done all that and failed, as it demands a lot of other editors' time. It's usually actually done when the parties involved are in such vehement disagreement that they are never going to agree to anything; I hope I'm not coming across as that hostile, or that attached to any particular resolution (I mean, we have to say something; I'm for whatever works best, and I'm not sure what would work best). I could ask some folks informally, and I will if you like. There's a good chance that anyone really interested already has this talk page on their watchlist, and will probably chime in if they see us agreeing on something they strongly oppose.

(I don't want to mislead you; I should make it clear that actual policy, hard rules, is that anyone may call an RfC on anything at any time. In practice, I can only recall my requesting an RfC on terminology a couple times; once it was some PR folk who wanted a fruit cultivar article named with their brandname, so they weren't very amenable to discussion, and the other time involved PR folk for Phillip Morris, who are very well-trained but with whom I have some fundamental disagreements about public health. This is not that! That's why I'm reluctant.)

I've been editing the page some more, and while I've still been using "thick-walled" and "thin-walled", that's just for consistency. I'm not trying to prejudice the discussion or be quarrelsome; I'm happy to change the terms in the article. I'm holding off because changing it repeatedly would be really annoying, and I don't want to ride roughshod over you and your excellent points. HLHJ (talk) 15:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for all of this background information! If menstrual disc is a term you feel isn't too misleading, I think that's a good option given its common usage. I haven't seen a thick-walled cup referred to as a menstrual disc, just the other way around with thin-walled cups labelled as menstrual cups. Regardless of the term used, it would probably be good to include a note somewhere that thin-walled cups are sometimes labelled simply as menstrual cups in studies, regulations, and product packaging.

When combing through my mental list of terms, I also remembered diaphragm tampon. That one I found confusing because when I read it I imagined disposable tampon material in the shape of a diaphragm, which was clearly not the reality. My guess is that tampon used to be understood as a more general term in the 1980s but now has a more specific meaning in common use. Unfortunately, I don't remember any terms besides disc, cup, cervical cup, and diaphragm tampon.

Crosswise and lengthwise are definitely descriptive terms that I think most people would understand. I have the same concern about that as with membrane cup, which is just that it's not commonly used. If it comes to that, it sounds like, from your description, we can invent a term. If possible, I'd still prefer to go with a somewhat common term so that people can more directly connect what they learn from this article to other sources if they use it as a jumping-off point.

Asking someone informally for a third opinion was what I meant, although it's good to know there's a formal process available. You're not coming across as hostile, so I'm happy to continue just the two of us if you prefer.

Looking back through our discussion, it seems like bell-shaped cup and menstrual disc are terms neither of us are strongly opposed to. Is that a correct read? If so, I think it would be reasonable to go with those terms.

Until this topic comes to a conclusion, it makes sense to keep using thin/thick-walled while updating. Any changes can wait until an agreement is reached. Ghosthugsincoming (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

There's a distinction drawn on Wikipedia between common terms, what a thing is most commonly called, and descriptive terms, which are possibly-novel descriptions, and should be clear, unambiguous, and not confusing. So while we can invent terms, they have to be descriptive, and significantly clearer than any common terms (this is why I didn't like "Menstrual cups come in two types, bell-shaped cups and disc-shaped cups" because while it is less awkward, and while I don't object to descriptive terms, the descriptive term is inaccurate). If there are multiple common terms, we are allower to pick a rarer but clearer or more accurate one as the main term used in the article. Quite regardless, articles give all the common terms for their topic, generally even awful and offensive ones, in bold black text, usually in the lede, and explain what they all mean (in this article, I split that off into the "terminology" section, because it was getting long).

So when you say "Regardless of the term used, it would probably be good to include a note somewhere that thin-walled cups are sometimes labelled simply as menstrual cups in studies, regulations, and product packaging", I'm completely in agreement, that is indeed the usual proceedure. And it wasn't until I was writing this that I realized I hadn't done that. I really thought I had, and I assumed you hadn't seen it, which was unwarranted. I'm sorry. I've fixed now.

I don't really like "diaphragm tampon" either. Are you suggesting that we say something like "Menstrual cups come in two types, bell-shaped cups and menstrual discs"? I find that a tad awkward; it seems to imply that menstrual discs both are and are not cups. Would you be okay with picking a rarer term which is in use? There are some of those.

"Menstrual cups come in two types, menstrual bells and menstrual discs" is a less-confusing ontology. The term "menstrual bell" is rare, but it is in use.[1]

Simple English wikipedia also has "ring". This actually seems pretty spatial and descriptive and distinct; it really is a ring with a bag hanging off it, not a bell shape with (usually) a thicker rim. It's a bit off the natural use of "ring", but nowhere near as far as "disc", and it seems fairly future-proof. "Menstrual ring" does seem to be used a bit, too: A “menstrual ring” is yet another way to say “menstrual disc”.[2]

If you were okay with "ring" as a description, we'd have "Menstrual cups come in two types, bell-shaped cups and ring-shaped cups", or, using two rare terms instead of a description, "Menstrual cups come in two types, menstrual bells and menstrual rings".

Going back to your original post, you said "I find thin-walled cup and thick-walled cup confusing as they're lengthy, easy to mix up terms that I didn't come across in any of the research I did". I'm not sure whether this implies that you would not be okay with any term that isn't a common term, but I'm fairly sure it means that you dislike long and confusing, and I have to agree with you on that . Reordering your three points: (1) not a common term, (2) long and (3) confusing, I'll go over each.

1. I looked at the common terms for these items, and came to the conclusion that "menstrual cup" was the best common-term name for the entire article, but there weren't any unconfusing common-name terms for the two subtypes. I therefore came up with some descriptive terms, and went with that. So we completely agree that "thick-walled" and "thin-walled" are not common terms. I think we might disagree a bit over how okay it is to use descriptive terms. I also agree with your other two points that the descriptive terms I picked have problems, so on to those.
2. "thick-walled" and "thin-walled" are indeed long. Calling them "thick cups" and "thin cups" would help with length, and not be much less descriptive.
3. I can see that "thick-walled" and "thin-walled" being easy to confuse; most of the letters are the same. Shortening helps, but they still share most of their letters.

"Menstrual cups come in two types, divided by wall thickness: thick cups and thin cups" is a purely-descriptive possibility. It somewhat ameliorates two of your concerns, but it still uses descriptive terms. And, of course, we have the purely-descriptive "Menstrual cups come in two types, distinguished by the way they are placed in the vagina: crosswise and lengthwise" (or "crosswise cups and lengthwise cups").

I'm not quite sure where all my preferences lie here. There might also be other rarer common terms I don't know. I'm glad I'm not coming across as hostile, it's easy to do by accident in text-only communications. HLHJ (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you again for walking me through all of this background information and Wikipedia's many policies and conventions. I think (hope) I'm starting to understand.

I'd honestly assumed you had already added the bit about thin-walled cups being labelled simply as cups too until I checked yesterday and realized it wasn't there. Thanks for adding it!

I agree that bell-shaped cups and menstrual discs is a bit of an odd pairing. I think either of your new suggestions (bell-shaped cups and ring-shaped cups, or menstrual bells and menstrual rings) would flow better. Thanks for sharing those links! Going into this discussion, I had no clue that so many terms were in use. You learn something new every day.

For my original points:

1. Going into this, I wasn't aware of how much liberty there was for descriptive terms in articles. You've also brought up good points about issues with every widely used term, so I feel more comfortable at this point going with functionality over familiarity.
2. Shortening to thick and thin cups would help but doesn't address the third (and, in my opinion, more pressing) point.
3. Similar word length and letters make words harder to distinguish, and I struggled to track what was what when reading over your changes. Your suggestion of bell and ring as alternative terms addresses this issue.

At this point, I think I prefer your suggestion of bell and ring as terms over crosswise and lengthwise. I have an easier time visualizing the former and don't have to think about it to remember which is which. However, I recognize different people have different points of reference and ways of thinking, so many would likely feel the opposite way. Which do you find more intuitive? How do we pick an option? I'm not sure how talk page posts typically get resolved. Thank you for being so patient in explaining all of this to me. Ghosthugsincoming (talk) 23:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

No worries! I was new once too, so I'm paying it forwards. Feel free to ask me for info or help on my talk page, on any subject. And a good new editor is a really valuable thing; your conscientiousness, thoughtfulness, and willingness to learn are all well above the usual. You've also been expressing yourself more clearly and concisely than I have,

I agree that named shapes are more vivid than named spatial orientations. Let's eliminate "crosswise" and "lengthwise" as descriptive terms, then.

The advantages of "menstrual bell" and "menstrual ring"; they are rare "common terms", but they are so much clearer than the more common ones, and they are decently descriptive; they are shorter and more wieldy terms; and there is less overlap in the contrasting names.

On the other hand, there is something to be said claritywise for having "cup" in the name of a subtype of menstrual cup. And "bell-shaped cup" and "ring-shaped cup" are on the safe side by being more descriptive.

If we had to string the adjectives, I think English order of adjectives would mean we'd say "bell-shaped menstrual cup"; if we treated "menstrual bell" as a compound, we'd probably say "menstrual bell cup", which sounds odder. I think that's an arguement for "bell-shaped cup".

I'm not sure we have to rigidly pick between these. Using them interchangably in the article is not likely to cause confusion, as they have the most salient word in common and are very recognisably the same division. Given English's tendency to zeugma, the difference between the two (and "bell" and "ring", and "bell cup" and "ring cup") is hardly glaring.

Actually, Wiktionary gives "annular" and "campanulate" as single words meaning "ring-shaped" and "bell-shaped". Much thought I love the fact that these words exist, I'm not sure using them here would make the article any clearer.

I think I'm leaning towards "bell-shaped/ring-shaped cup", with no particular prejudice against the text occasionally saying "menstrual bell/ring", if it fits better. If you are okay with that, we can just declare this resolved. If you lean the other way, I'm happy to go along with that; I think these are both decent options, and will make the article much easier to understand than the whole thickwalled/thinwalled thing.

When I've heard back, I'll go through and implement it. I picked the original poor terms that need replacing, so that seems fair. I daresay I'll miss some occurances, and I hope you'll pick me up on anything I miss. I'll put "per talk page discussion" in the edit summary to cue anyone skimming the edit history that it has, indeed, been discussed, there was a WP:consensus (of two, but that's legit and common enough), it isn't just a thoughtless, arbitrary change, and they can go read the reasons if they care. HLHJ (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

That's very kind! Thank you.

I'm quite happy to go with bell-shaped cup and ring-shaped cup as the terms of choice. I agree that interchanging those with menstrual bell/ring wouldn't be likely to cause confusion. Bell-shaped menstrual cup sounds correct. I think that means this topic is resolved, unless there's a particular tag or something that needs to be attached to indicate resolution.

Thank you for your offer to implement the change in terms! I'll wait until you've made the change and then go through the article to see if I catch any extra occurrences.

This has been an enlightening discussion. :) Ghosthugsincoming (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Done! I hope, mostly. There is no special template for resolution, consensus only gets formal when it needs to. Wikipedia is a bit of a do-ocracy; the people who are willing to take part in discussions or just do stuff get to choose what they do. Be bold! I hope you will not hold off from editing this article just because I am editing it. There's endless stuff to do, and I don't own the article! I think next I may expand the materials section, and add a bit on manufacturing with some notes on cost, and tweak the stuff above that. Comments welcome.

I'm glad the discussion went well. You brought up things I hadn't thought of; I think it really improved the article. HLHJ (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)