This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
69.208.172.157 14:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I would like to explain my revert of the most recent edit (from this to this). The expansion of the size of the template did not make it any more readable, it mainly made it take up more space. Also, I do not agree with the content edits. Two-Day Method is a redlink, for one, and the Billings Ovulation Method and the Creighton Model are both essentially brand names for the cervical mucus observation method of fertility awareness. The fertility awareness article describes and links to both the BOM and CM, as well as to the basal body temperature article; because "fertility awareness" is an umbrella term which encompasses all of them. Any instance in which we list a brand names for a method is if that method is only available under one brand name, and are thus is only called by that brand name. We don't have that same issue with the various methods of fertility awareness, so the specific types need not be listed. Joie de Vivre 15:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I understand that in the UK, IUDs are copper/silver devices, and IUSs are hormonal devices. However, I feel from the US perspective that it's important to list that there exist both a copper and a hormonal option. In the US, there is no such thing as an "IUS", the term isn't used. Both the Paragard and the Mirena are referred to as the IUD. So, if we list that there is only one type of IUD (copper), a US citizen might be misled into thinking that's the only intrauterine option available.
Because Mirena is listed both under the IUD and the IUS articles, a more complete description in this template is to state that there is such a thing as a progestogen IUD. Both descriptions are complete in this version. Joie de Vivre 20:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
So, inspired by Fred Bradstadt's work on the template (great job, Fred!), I made two small changes to the template: I added a "Chemical" section to include the Contraceptive sponge and Spermicide. I did this because although the sponge does rely partially on physically blocking sperm, it mainly relies on the spermicide. Another reason to include it in the chemical section is that while the other barrier methods can be used without spermicide, the contraceptive sponge contains spermicide which cannot be removed. Thus, it is always a chemical method.
The second change is that I added a "See also" section. I am hoping that this won't become a WP:BEANS situation with people adding tangentially related things, but I thought it was a good thing to create a place for Natural birth control, a distinction which is relevant to many women who cannot use hormonal methods of birth control. I also moved Abstinence from "Behavioral" to "See also", because I tend to think that "not having sex" is a different category altogether when it comes to birth control. "Birth control" almost always has to do with figuring out ways to have sex, while avoiding pregnancy; it generally does not involve avoiding sex altogether. As all the methods besides abstinence involve sexual activity, I feel this one must be distinguished. Joie de Vivre 14:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this edit was very helpful:
I understand the desire to move away from brand names and use more generalized terminology, however, in these cases many of the methods are themselves best known as the brand names. In the event that other brands come up we can use more neutral terminology, in the meantime, this just adds bloat. — Joie de Vivre 15:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure this line should be in the template. I had concerns about including natural birth control in the template (see Template talk:BirthControl/Archive1#"Natural"). And now anti-rape female condom has been added, which has a relationship to birth control more along the lines of a hysterectomy - meaning, preventing pregnancy is a side effect of its primary purpose. See the end of the section Template talk:BirthControl/Archive1#Formatting for a previous discussion of including hysterectomy and castration (at that time it was decided not to).
I would like to delete the "See also" line and its contents. What do others think? Lyrl Talk C 20:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Lea's Shield doesn't seem to belong in the template as a unique method, as it is a cervical cap and, as such, redirects to the cervical cap article. Seems like a no-brainer. Thoughts? 71.58.204.17 ( talk) 06:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Lyrl, why did you remove Male contraceptive and Natural birth control articles from this template? These contain information about little-known forms of birth control. Since the template is a navigational tool, why would articles about forms of birth control be excluded? Both contain information that is not included in any other articles in the template. 66.30.20.71 ( talk) 18:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
The appearance overhaul given to the template in this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template:Birth_control_methods&oldid=224800422 makes the template harder to use and look busier. I think it would be better to go back to the old appearance, what do other editors think.
Some of these issues can be fixed, but I would favor just going back to the older, more compatible style. What do other editors think?
A side issue:
The sections are currently (July 2008) [2] ordered by degree of invasiveness/complexity/reversibility: see David's comment here and edit summary control methods&diff=125685335&oldid=125672311 here, and a discussion on (mostly) ordering at Template talk:BirthControl/Archive1#Behavioral vs. Physical. Lyrl Talk C 18:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
There are also a few observations about order of Comparison of methods and Emergency contraception in #Appearance, etc changes of 10 July 08.
Thought this explanation of the order of the sections in the template might be useful to have here, so I copied it and added a small update. Zodon ( talk) 10:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I have wondered how many readers actually find this template useful, or if slapping navigation boxes on every article is just a fad among editors. I've been looking at a few articles in User:Henrik's traffic statistic tool to try to get a feel for how this template is used.
On 4 July, the link to "rhythm method" was changed to link to "calendar-based methods". In June, "rhythm method" got 600-900 hits per day while "calendar-based methods" got 70-130 hits per day. After July 4th, "calendar-based methods" got 150-250 hits per day, while "rhythm method" got 400-700 hits per day. It appears that 100-200 readers per day are using this template to navigate.
Also on 4 July, the link to "Lea's Shield" was removed, and a note added that that method was covered in the "cervical cap" article. Hits to "cervical cap" did not change. But hits to "Lea's Shield", which had been running 100-170 per day in June, dropped to 10-90 per day after 4 July. Again, this points to at least 100 readers per day navigating with this template.
I thought other editors might be interested in this data on how readers use this template. Lyrl Talk C 22:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
A discussion of how or whether to include discontinued methods at Comparison of birth control methods is here. Please feel free to join in. Whatever404 ( talk) 15:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
What about adding Extended cycle combined hormonal contraceptive to the template (putting it under Combined hormonal methods, shorten the name to extended cycle. Granted it is really just a different way of using existing methods (pill, ring, etc.), but there are some products packaged specifically for extended cycle use. However emergency contraception is similarly just another application of existing hormonal methods (if don't have a special purpose pill, can use a set number of regular pills).
In view of the increasing recognition of the advantages of extended cycle usage, might be worth including it here. Thoughts? Zodon ( talk) 07:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Long acting reversible contraceptive options being pushed in UK (well, the giving of advice about them is). Should a link to this be added, the most obvious place would seem to be in the "Comparison" row ? David Ruben Talk 18:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Is there a reason why commas are used in this template instead of using {{ ·}}? I like the look of the middot better, but didn't want to just change things when this template has used commas for so long. Lyrl Talk C 23:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Lyrl changed the ordering of the items in the Behavioral - Avoiding vaginal intercourse section [3] to more closely correspond to the general ordering principle of the template, which has been "by degree of invasiveness/complexity/reversibility" In this context, invasive appears to be used in the medical sense ( Invasive (medical)) (For discussion/explanation of the ordering, see [4] and Template_talk:BirthControl/Archive1#Behavioral_vs._Physical ) This seemed to me a reasonable change, consistent with the current ordering of the sections.
Whatever404 has reverted the change, the edit summary comments appear to be suggesting that the methods should be ordered by how much they interfere with sex life [5]. This is a very different ranking from the one that has been used. (Putting the most interfering method last is almost exactly opposite of the current ordering, for instance, IUD and sterilization are among the least interfering methods.)
Using contrary orderings for the main sections and the subsections does not make sense to me. How do these orderings make sense together, or if think time for a new order, please make it clearer what overall order is being suggested. Thanks. Zodon ( talk) 08:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I've added a History section to the template so that articles on birth control history are more accessible. Please let me know if this is inappropriate. Thanks. Kaldari ( talk) 18:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Please make this edit to this template. This will expand the bottom navigation to fill the width of the bottom of the navbox, and remove the spurious background coloring which is showing through near the edges. Thank you.
134.253.26.10 ( talk) 21:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I added Hysterectomy and Castration to the Sterilization group, but the addition was reverted on the grounds that they are "Not meant as contraceptive". I don't dispute the fact that birth-control is a side-effect of hysterectomy and castration, but following the same logic should we remove masturbation, since it is not "meant as a contraceptive" either? (I was going to suggest replacing it with mutual masturbation, but that redirects to the already-listed non-penetrative sex.) Mitch Ames ( talk) 03:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I've made a test of a re-organization of this template and would appreciate comments from anyone watching this template. I have transcluded the sandbox version below. Thank you. bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 04:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello friends, I would like to suggest the following adjustments to this template:
1: We convert the "Comparisons" row which is currently at the top to be titled "overviews" and then include links to several of the articles that cover different categories of contraception, such as hormonal contraception, male contraception, etc. I think these types of articles would be frequently wanted for people coming from different sexual and reproductive health pages.
2: The current row near the bottom labelled "Experimental" needs to be overhauled, since there are currently quite a few male and female methods of contraception in preclinical and clinical development, and the only project listed is RISUG, which is certainly not the most prominent method in development currently. I am open to feedback on whether to expand this section to include more methods in development or remove it altogether.
3: I would suggest line breaks in the category titles so that they take up less horizontal space. Right now the width of the titles exceeds the width of the links to pages!
4: I suggest removing the ATC codes in the title bar, as I feel they are confusing and not very helpful to the average user.
I will hold off on making these changes until next week to allow time for comment, then I will go ahead and make these edits!
Willmskinner ( talk) 22:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
69.208.172.157 14:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I would like to explain my revert of the most recent edit (from this to this). The expansion of the size of the template did not make it any more readable, it mainly made it take up more space. Also, I do not agree with the content edits. Two-Day Method is a redlink, for one, and the Billings Ovulation Method and the Creighton Model are both essentially brand names for the cervical mucus observation method of fertility awareness. The fertility awareness article describes and links to both the BOM and CM, as well as to the basal body temperature article; because "fertility awareness" is an umbrella term which encompasses all of them. Any instance in which we list a brand names for a method is if that method is only available under one brand name, and are thus is only called by that brand name. We don't have that same issue with the various methods of fertility awareness, so the specific types need not be listed. Joie de Vivre 15:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I understand that in the UK, IUDs are copper/silver devices, and IUSs are hormonal devices. However, I feel from the US perspective that it's important to list that there exist both a copper and a hormonal option. In the US, there is no such thing as an "IUS", the term isn't used. Both the Paragard and the Mirena are referred to as the IUD. So, if we list that there is only one type of IUD (copper), a US citizen might be misled into thinking that's the only intrauterine option available.
Because Mirena is listed both under the IUD and the IUS articles, a more complete description in this template is to state that there is such a thing as a progestogen IUD. Both descriptions are complete in this version. Joie de Vivre 20:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
So, inspired by Fred Bradstadt's work on the template (great job, Fred!), I made two small changes to the template: I added a "Chemical" section to include the Contraceptive sponge and Spermicide. I did this because although the sponge does rely partially on physically blocking sperm, it mainly relies on the spermicide. Another reason to include it in the chemical section is that while the other barrier methods can be used without spermicide, the contraceptive sponge contains spermicide which cannot be removed. Thus, it is always a chemical method.
The second change is that I added a "See also" section. I am hoping that this won't become a WP:BEANS situation with people adding tangentially related things, but I thought it was a good thing to create a place for Natural birth control, a distinction which is relevant to many women who cannot use hormonal methods of birth control. I also moved Abstinence from "Behavioral" to "See also", because I tend to think that "not having sex" is a different category altogether when it comes to birth control. "Birth control" almost always has to do with figuring out ways to have sex, while avoiding pregnancy; it generally does not involve avoiding sex altogether. As all the methods besides abstinence involve sexual activity, I feel this one must be distinguished. Joie de Vivre 14:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this edit was very helpful:
I understand the desire to move away from brand names and use more generalized terminology, however, in these cases many of the methods are themselves best known as the brand names. In the event that other brands come up we can use more neutral terminology, in the meantime, this just adds bloat. — Joie de Vivre 15:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure this line should be in the template. I had concerns about including natural birth control in the template (see Template talk:BirthControl/Archive1#"Natural"). And now anti-rape female condom has been added, which has a relationship to birth control more along the lines of a hysterectomy - meaning, preventing pregnancy is a side effect of its primary purpose. See the end of the section Template talk:BirthControl/Archive1#Formatting for a previous discussion of including hysterectomy and castration (at that time it was decided not to).
I would like to delete the "See also" line and its contents. What do others think? Lyrl Talk C 20:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Lea's Shield doesn't seem to belong in the template as a unique method, as it is a cervical cap and, as such, redirects to the cervical cap article. Seems like a no-brainer. Thoughts? 71.58.204.17 ( talk) 06:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Lyrl, why did you remove Male contraceptive and Natural birth control articles from this template? These contain information about little-known forms of birth control. Since the template is a navigational tool, why would articles about forms of birth control be excluded? Both contain information that is not included in any other articles in the template. 66.30.20.71 ( talk) 18:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
The appearance overhaul given to the template in this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template:Birth_control_methods&oldid=224800422 makes the template harder to use and look busier. I think it would be better to go back to the old appearance, what do other editors think.
Some of these issues can be fixed, but I would favor just going back to the older, more compatible style. What do other editors think?
A side issue:
The sections are currently (July 2008) [2] ordered by degree of invasiveness/complexity/reversibility: see David's comment here and edit summary control methods&diff=125685335&oldid=125672311 here, and a discussion on (mostly) ordering at Template talk:BirthControl/Archive1#Behavioral vs. Physical. Lyrl Talk C 18:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
There are also a few observations about order of Comparison of methods and Emergency contraception in #Appearance, etc changes of 10 July 08.
Thought this explanation of the order of the sections in the template might be useful to have here, so I copied it and added a small update. Zodon ( talk) 10:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I have wondered how many readers actually find this template useful, or if slapping navigation boxes on every article is just a fad among editors. I've been looking at a few articles in User:Henrik's traffic statistic tool to try to get a feel for how this template is used.
On 4 July, the link to "rhythm method" was changed to link to "calendar-based methods". In June, "rhythm method" got 600-900 hits per day while "calendar-based methods" got 70-130 hits per day. After July 4th, "calendar-based methods" got 150-250 hits per day, while "rhythm method" got 400-700 hits per day. It appears that 100-200 readers per day are using this template to navigate.
Also on 4 July, the link to "Lea's Shield" was removed, and a note added that that method was covered in the "cervical cap" article. Hits to "cervical cap" did not change. But hits to "Lea's Shield", which had been running 100-170 per day in June, dropped to 10-90 per day after 4 July. Again, this points to at least 100 readers per day navigating with this template.
I thought other editors might be interested in this data on how readers use this template. Lyrl Talk C 22:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
A discussion of how or whether to include discontinued methods at Comparison of birth control methods is here. Please feel free to join in. Whatever404 ( talk) 15:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
What about adding Extended cycle combined hormonal contraceptive to the template (putting it under Combined hormonal methods, shorten the name to extended cycle. Granted it is really just a different way of using existing methods (pill, ring, etc.), but there are some products packaged specifically for extended cycle use. However emergency contraception is similarly just another application of existing hormonal methods (if don't have a special purpose pill, can use a set number of regular pills).
In view of the increasing recognition of the advantages of extended cycle usage, might be worth including it here. Thoughts? Zodon ( talk) 07:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Long acting reversible contraceptive options being pushed in UK (well, the giving of advice about them is). Should a link to this be added, the most obvious place would seem to be in the "Comparison" row ? David Ruben Talk 18:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Is there a reason why commas are used in this template instead of using {{ ·}}? I like the look of the middot better, but didn't want to just change things when this template has used commas for so long. Lyrl Talk C 23:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Lyrl changed the ordering of the items in the Behavioral - Avoiding vaginal intercourse section [3] to more closely correspond to the general ordering principle of the template, which has been "by degree of invasiveness/complexity/reversibility" In this context, invasive appears to be used in the medical sense ( Invasive (medical)) (For discussion/explanation of the ordering, see [4] and Template_talk:BirthControl/Archive1#Behavioral_vs._Physical ) This seemed to me a reasonable change, consistent with the current ordering of the sections.
Whatever404 has reverted the change, the edit summary comments appear to be suggesting that the methods should be ordered by how much they interfere with sex life [5]. This is a very different ranking from the one that has been used. (Putting the most interfering method last is almost exactly opposite of the current ordering, for instance, IUD and sterilization are among the least interfering methods.)
Using contrary orderings for the main sections and the subsections does not make sense to me. How do these orderings make sense together, or if think time for a new order, please make it clearer what overall order is being suggested. Thanks. Zodon ( talk) 08:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I've added a History section to the template so that articles on birth control history are more accessible. Please let me know if this is inappropriate. Thanks. Kaldari ( talk) 18:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Please make this edit to this template. This will expand the bottom navigation to fill the width of the bottom of the navbox, and remove the spurious background coloring which is showing through near the edges. Thank you.
134.253.26.10 ( talk) 21:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I added Hysterectomy and Castration to the Sterilization group, but the addition was reverted on the grounds that they are "Not meant as contraceptive". I don't dispute the fact that birth-control is a side-effect of hysterectomy and castration, but following the same logic should we remove masturbation, since it is not "meant as a contraceptive" either? (I was going to suggest replacing it with mutual masturbation, but that redirects to the already-listed non-penetrative sex.) Mitch Ames ( talk) 03:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I've made a test of a re-organization of this template and would appreciate comments from anyone watching this template. I have transcluded the sandbox version below. Thank you. bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 04:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello friends, I would like to suggest the following adjustments to this template:
1: We convert the "Comparisons" row which is currently at the top to be titled "overviews" and then include links to several of the articles that cover different categories of contraception, such as hormonal contraception, male contraception, etc. I think these types of articles would be frequently wanted for people coming from different sexual and reproductive health pages.
2: The current row near the bottom labelled "Experimental" needs to be overhauled, since there are currently quite a few male and female methods of contraception in preclinical and clinical development, and the only project listed is RISUG, which is certainly not the most prominent method in development currently. I am open to feedback on whether to expand this section to include more methods in development or remove it altogether.
3: I would suggest line breaks in the category titles so that they take up less horizontal space. Right now the width of the titles exceeds the width of the links to pages!
4: I suggest removing the ATC codes in the title bar, as I feel they are confusing and not very helpful to the average user.
I will hold off on making these changes until next week to allow time for comment, then I will go ahead and make these edits!
Willmskinner ( talk) 22:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)